JX 

197* 


IC-NRLF 


8 

CO 

o 


67TH  CONGRESS  1  Q-pvATP1  /DOCUMENT 

2d  Session      /  SENATE  4    No.  109 


KOREA'S  APPEAL 

TO  THE 

CONFERENCE  ON 
LIMITATION  OF  ARMAMENT 


PRESENTED  BY  MR.  SPENCER 
DECEMBER  21,  1921.— Ordered  to  be  printed 


WASHINGTON 
GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 

1922 


KOREA'S  APPEAL  TO  THE  CONFERENCE  ON  LIMI- 
TATION OF  ARMAMENT. 


KOREAN  MISSION  TO  THE  CONFERENCE 

ON  LIMITATION  OF  ARMAMENT, 
Washington,  D.  C.,  December  1, 

All  of  us  demand  liberty  and  justice.  There  can  not  be  one  without  the 
other,  and  they  must  be  held  the  unquestionable  possession  of  all  peoples.  In- 
herent rights  are  of  God,  and  the  tragedies  of  the  world  originate  in  their 
attempted  denial.  The  world  to-day  is  infringing  their  enjoyment  by  arming 
to  defend  or  deny,  when  simple  sanity  calls  for  their  recognition  through  com- 
mon understanding.  (President  Harding  in  opening  address  to  the  con- 
ference. ) 

To  the  CONFERENCE  ON  LIMITATION  OF  ARMAMENT: 

Prior  to  your  assemblage  and  organization  we  presented  to  the 
delegation  from  the  United  States  an  appeal  on  behalf  of  the  Korean 
people  for  an  opportunity  to  present  their  plea  to  its  consideration,  in 
the  hope  that  we  might,  through  its  good  offices,  be  granted  the  op- 
portunity to  obtain  a  hearing  before  the  conference.  A  copy  of  that 
appeal  is  hereto  attached.  (Appendix  No.  1.) 

All  of  the  conferee  nations,  with  one  exception,  are  in  a  similar 
situation  to  the  United  States,  for  they  have  agreed  by  treaty  with 
Korea  to  use  their  good  offices  in  case  of  her  oppression— per  conse- 
quence— we  have  resolved  to  also  present  Korea's  appeal  for  justice 
to  the  conference  as  a  whole. 

Assuredly,  we  can  assume  that  all  of  the  ambassadors,  delegates, 
and  advisors  who  participate  in  the  grave  responsibilities  of  your 
task  are  familiar  with  those  treaties  and  with  the  interpretative 
diplomatic  correspondence  relating  to  them.  However,  for  conven- 
ience of  reference  we  have  prepared  an  abstract  of  the  governmental 
records,  documents,  and  treaties  pertaining  to  the  relations  of  each 
conferee  nation  with  Korea,  which  is  attached  as  Appendix  No.  2, 
under  the  title,  "  What  the  conferee  nations  have  said  and  pledged." 

We  solemnly  affirm  that  justice  to  Korea  constitutes  an  indis- 
pensable requisite  to  the  permanent  adjustment  of  far  eastern  affairs. 
How  can  there  be  peace  in  the  Orient  if  a  nation  of  25,000,000  people 
are  left  to  smart  with  the  injustice  of  treaties  "  unkept "  ? 

When  Her  Majesty,  the  Queen  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland  arid  Empress  of  India,  through  Her  Majesty's 
envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary,  Sir  Harry  Smith 
Parkes,  knight  of  the  Grand  Cross  and  knight  commander  of  the 
Most  Honorable  Order  of  the  Bath,  said  in  the  treaty  of  1883  that 
there  shall  be  perpetual  peace  and  friendship  with  Korea,  and  that 
in  case  of  difference  with  a  third  power  Great  Britain  would  step 
in  to  exert  its  good  offices  to  bring  about  an  amicable  arrangement, 
Korea  saw  back  of  those  covenants  the  integrity  of  England. 

M52,' 


KOREA'S  APPEAL. 


When  His  Majesty,  the  King  of  Belgium,  through  M.  Leon  Vin- 
cart,  chevalier  of  the  Order  of  Leopold  of  Belgium,  said  in  the 
treaty  of  1901  that  the  good  offices  of  Belgium  would  be  extended  to 
Korea  in  case  of  need,  Korea  knew  that  the  honor  of  Belgium  had 
been  pledged. 

When  His  Majesty,  the  King  of  Italy,  through  Chevalier  Ferdi- 
nand De  Luca,  knight  commander  of  the  Mauritian  Order  and  of  the 
Order  of  the  Crown  of  Italy,  decorated  by  China  with  the  order  of 
the  two  dragons,  said  in  the  treaty  of  1884  that  the  good  offices  of 
Italy  would  be  available  to  Korea  in  case  of  differences  with  a  third 
power,  she  knew  that  she  could  rely  upon  the  pledges  of  Italy. 

The  pledges  of  Denmark  were  hers  through  the  treaty  of  1902, 
when  His  Majesty,  the  King  of  Denmark,  through  Monsieur  A. 
Pavlow,  commander  of  the  Order  of  Sainte  Anne,  signed  the  treaty 
with  Korea. 

What  confidence  must  have  been  Korea's  when  she  read  the  proc- 
lamation of  the  President  of  the  United  States  that  "every  clause 
and  article  "of  the  treaty  of  1882  'must  be  observed  and  fulfilled 
with  good  faith  by  the  United  States  and  the  citizens  thereof." 

Can  you  say  to  Korea  that  these  pledges  are  meaningless?  That 
she  can  be  annexed  by  her  own  ally,  whom  she  assisted  to  win  a 
great  war?  That  against  the  will  of  her  people  she  can  be  stripped 
of  all  sovereignty,  freedom,  and  liberty?  That  her  people  can  be 
taxed  without  representation,  oppressed  and  annihilated,  without 
even  a  protest?  If  you  say  that;  if  that  is  your  position — can  you 
expect  to  have  world  peace  result  from  such  a  conference?  Will 
any  agreement  that  you  make  here  have  any  more  binding  force  or 
effect  than  the  agreements  that  you  have  already  made,  and  will  the 
world  at  large,  or  even  yourselves,  have  any  respect  for  them  ? 

The  United  States  should  assist  China,  as  she  is  doing.  She  is 
hearing  China's  cry  for  justice,  because  in  1858  the  United  States 
pledged  to  China  her  good  offices  in  the  treaty  then  proclaimed  by 
President  Buchanan.  (12  Stat.,  1023.)  For  the  same  reason  she 
should  assist  Korea,  because  in  1882  the  United  States  pledged  to 
Korea  her  good  offices  in  the  treaty  then  proclaimed  by  President 
Arthur.  (23  Stat,,  720.) 

An  American  writer  of  the  highest  repute  has  recently  declared 
that— 

In  the  list  of  commitments,  our  pledged  support  to  China  and  our  guaranty  of 
her  territorial  and  administrative  integrity,  now  greatly  menaced,  will  bulk 
large.  Our  pledge  to  support  China  goes  back  to  the  treaty  of  1858,  in  which  we 
pledged  ourselves  to  use  our  good  offices  in  case  any  nation  acted  unjustly 
toward  China.  To-day  that  pledge  is  China's  main  hope  of  salvation  from  the 
many  dangers  by  which  she  is  threatened.  Should  we  be  blind  to  our  own 
interests,  the  appeal  to  our  national  honor  will  not  be  made  in  vain  nor  go 
unheeded. 

Korea,  yielding  to  the  persuasion  of  America,  emerged  from  the 
solitude  of  her  hermit  life  and  timidly  joined  the  family  of  nations. 
She  differs  from  China  to-day  only  in  that  the  processes  of  foreign 
intrusion  have  fully  accomplished  in  Korea  what  are  still  in  progress 
in  China.  Confronted  with  their  menace,  Korea  vainly  invoked  the 
covenant  for  her  protection.  Her  "  appeal  to  the  national  honor " 
was  made  in  vain,  for  it  went  unheeded. 


KOREA'S  APPEAL. 


If  the  observance  of  this  pledge  be  now  essential  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  China,  it  is  the  more  essential  for  the  restoration  of  Korea, 
which  presents  in  concrete  form  the  fruitage  of  every  policy  which 
threatens  China's  economic  or  political  integrity.  The  processes  in- 
volving China  are  those  which  submerged  Korea.  They  are  identi- 
cal in  origin,  in  purpose,  and  in  result.  They  can  not  be  thwarted  in 
China  if  they  are  to  be  disregarded  in  Korea. 

Because  China  still  retains  the  external  forms  of  government  she 
is  rightly  given  a  place  at  your  council  board.  Because  Korea  has 
been  deprived  of  all  forms  of  government  is  she  to  be  denied  even  a 
hearing  before  a  tribunal  which  "  is  an  earnest  of  the  awakened  con- 
science of  twentieth  century  civilization,"  the  call  for  which  "  is  the 
spoken  word  of  a  war- wearied  world  struggling  for  restoration,  hun- 
gering and  thirsting  for  better  relationship  of  humanity,  crying  for 
relief  and  craving  assurances  of  everlasting  peace  "  ? 

We  venture  the  assertion  that  our  appeal  for  your  consideration 
can  be  denied  only  from  motives  of  expediency.  But  this  conference, 
rich  with  the  sad  experiences  of  its  many  predecessors,  should  pro- 
vide no  place  for  an  expediency  which  excludes  the  seat  of  justice. 
Expedients  are  palliatives  which  postpone  but  never  correct;  always 
convenient,  sometimes  necessary,  seldom  conclusive.  They  are  the 
bane  of  treaties,  the  most  fruitful,  if  not  the  only  cause  of  their  mis- 
carriage. 

If  it  be  argued  that  the  absorption  of  Korea  by  the  Empire  of 
Japan  be  a  fait  accompli,  and  therefore  beyond  your  consideration, 
we  may  reply  by  the  assertion  that  no  such  act  is  ever  final,  when  the 
result  is  oppression  or  breach  of  treaty  covenants.  History  supplies 
us  with  many  illustrations  of  this  inexorable  truth,  of  which  Poland, 
Greece,  Finland,  Bohemia,  and  others  are  exemplars.  The  conscience 
of  the  world  sustains  the  cause  of  such  people,  and  its  peace  is  im- 
periled until  justice  hears  and  responds  to  their  appeals. 

Korea  is  the  most  ancient  of  nations.  Until  compelled  by  the  force 
ma j ear  of  the  United  States  she  was  wholly  self-contained.  She  was 
the  hermit  nation.  She  was  content  with  her  own  aifairs.  She  en- 
vied her  neighbors  neither  their  commerce  nor  their  domains.  She 
sought  no  conquests.  She  committed  no  aggressions. 

From  1882  to  1907  she  maintained  diplomatic  relations  with  all 
nations  under  treaties  which,  without  exception,  covenanted  for  the 
exercise  of  their  good  offices,  should  any  nation  deal  unjustly  with 
her.  She  relied  upon  these  covenants  for  her  security,  since  her  geo- 
graphic position  exposed  her  to  the  perils  of  conflict  between  her 
more  powerful  neighbors. 

Her  domain  commands  the  entrance  to  the  Yellow  Sea,  whose  hin- 
terland teems  with  vast  populations  eager  for  the  trade  of  the  world. 
It  constitutes  a  tempting,  if  not  essential,  basis  for  extensive  schemes 
of  Asiatic  conquest,  whether  military  or  commercial. 

Korea's  20,000,000  people  are  united  in  their  protest  against  the 
domination  of  Japan.  That  protest  has  crystallized  into  the  forma- 
tion of  a  Republic.  Their  resistance  to  the  dominant  authority  is 
necessarily  passive,  yet  constant  and  persistent.  They  are  without 
arms  and  without  money,  yet  not  without  organization.  Their  faith 
is  in  the  wisdom,  the  discernment,  and  the  sense  of  justice  of  this 
great  conference.  They  ask  to  be  heard.  They  are  prepared  to  ac- 


KOREA'S  APPEAL. 


cept  your  decree  upon  the  hearing  with  all  the  facts  before  you.  Tho 
future  peace  of  the  world  is  in  your  hands,  but  it  will  not  be  attained 
until  the  cry  of  Korea  for  justice  has  been  answered. 

If  it  be  contended  that  to  grant  our  appeal  would  be  to  intrude 
a  domestic  or  internal  affair  of  Japan  into  an  international  discus- 
sion, we  answer  that  the  more  serious  problems  affecting  China  are 
subject  to  the  same  criticism.  Yet  China  participates  in  the  deliber- 
ations of  the  conference,  and  it  is  universally  recognized  that  the 
adjustment  of  her  affairs  is  the  sine  quo  non  of  any  effectual  scheme 
for  reducing  armaments.  And  China's  principal  right  to  considera- 
tion rests  upon  treaty  covenants  identical  with  our  own. 

It  is  because  the  nations  with  whom  we  covenanted  disregarded 
our  appeals  for  the  exercise  of  their  good  offices  in  our  behalf  when 
Korea  was  unjustly  dealt  with  that  we  are  compelled  to  present  this 
petition.  Had  the  least  of  them  responded,  the  eyes  of  the  world 
would  have  been  turned  upon  Japan,  whose  gaze  would  have  stayed 
her  hand.  Surely  you  will  not  turn  away  from  us  when  you  con- 
sider how  indispensable  is  your  favor  to  our  national  rehabilitation 
and  to  the  accomplishment  of  your  great  objective. 

Japan  can  not  defend  nor  mitigate  her  forcible  dominion  over 
Korea  upon  the  plea  of  needed  territory  for  her  expanding  popula- 
tion. Korea  can  be  used  for  colonization  only  by  exterminating  the 
Korean  people,  which  is  beyond  her  power.  Korea  comprises  but 
84,400  square  miles,  with  a  population  of  some  20,000,000,  or  239  to 
the  square  mile.  This  density  of  population  forbids  any  other  alter- 
native. The  policy  has  been  attempted,  yet  during  the  comparative 
long  period  of  Japanese  occupation  only  300,000  Japanese  have  made 
Korea  their  abode.  They  came  not  to  develop  but  to  exploit. 

We  are  aware  of  the  fact  that  Japan  has  claimed  that  certain 
treaties  were  made  after  the  treaty  of  alliance  between  Korea  and 
Japan  in  1904  by  which  Korea  voluntarily  gave  up  her  sovereignty 
to  Japan. 

If  we  but  consider  what  must  have  been  the  attitude  and  the  temper 
of  the  Korean  people  at  this  time  we  realize  how  absurd  and  im- 
possible this  would  be.  How  could  the  Koreans  forget  the  murder 
of  their  Queen  and  the  poisoning  of  their  Emperor '?  Could  they 
forget  how  Japan  came  into  Korea,  protesting  love  and  friendship 
under  a  treaty  of  alliance,  and  how,  flushed  with  the  victory  over 
Russia,  which  the  Koreans  themselves  made  possible,  the  Japanese 
threw  off  the  guise  of  friendship  and  violated  their  treaty  of  alliance, 
refusing  to  withdraw  their  troops,  and  have  continued  their  military 
possession  to  this  day?  Korea  has  never  been  put  back  in  the  posi- 
tion she  was  in  before  the  treaty  of  alliance,  where  she  could  defend 
herself.  Japan  never  placed  her  in  statu  quo.  Consequently,  noth- 
ing that  Japan  has  done  or  that  she  has  procured  to  be  done  under 
the  menace  of  this  military  occupation  can  be  used  by  Japan  to 
justify  her  retention  of  Korea.  The  facts  regarding  the  treaties 
said  to  have  been  made  during  this  term  of  duress  were  covered  in 
the  "  Brief  for  Korea  "  which  was  filed  with  the  Hon.  Charles  Evans 
Hughes  in  April,  1921,  and  for  convenience  we  attach  hereto  a  copy 
of  that  brief  as  Appendix  No.  3. 

Should  this  conference  complete  its  labors  and  adjourn  without 
heeding  the  plea  of  Korea,  its  work,  however  beneficent  otherwise, 


KOREA'S  APPEAL. 


will  leave  to  posterity  an  Asiatic  Alsace-Lorraine  problem  to  plague 
its  conscience,  threaten  its  peace,  and  disturb  the  finality  of  every  ad- 
justment of  international  relations. 

Finally,  it  may  be  asserted  that  Korea's  right  to  be  heard  by  this 
conference  rests  upon  the  solemn  sanction  of  treaty  obligations. 
Apart  from  the  failure  of  the  members  of  this  conference  to  observe 
their  covenants  with  Korea  when  called  upon  to  exercise  their  good 
offices  in  her  behalf  when  unjustly  assailed  by  Japan  at  the  threshold 
of  her  aggressive  policies,  there  remains  the  fact  that  Korea  is  the 
uphappy  victim  of  her  abiding  trust  in  the  sanctity  of  international 
agreements.  Not  force,  but  fraud,  gave  Japan  possession  of  Korean 
territory  and  Korean  sovereignty.  Her  treaty  of  alliance  with  Korea 
against  Russia  in  1904  made  Korea  her  indispensable  base  of  opera- 
tions against  the  common  enemy,  in  acknowledgment  for  which  great 
advantage  she  covenanted  to  safeguard  Korea's  independence  and  ter- 
ritorial integrity  for  all  time.  Then,  victorious  over  Russia,  she 
forged  her  treaty  into  a  weapon  for  the  undoing  of  Korea.  The 
burden  of  the  yoke  then  fashioned  for  the  necks  of  her  unhappy 
people  has  been  made  heavier  by  the  indifference  of  the  nations  to 
their  obligations.  This  great  conference,  whose  convocation  has  been 
greeted  as  the  harbinger  of  a  new  era  in  world  affairs,  constitutes  the 
final  tribunal  of  appeal  for  Korea.  She  asks  for  justice  and  nothing 
more. 

Hers  is  the  far  eastern  problem  in  all  its  phases.  She  is  both  its 
exponent  and  the  finished  example  of  Japanese  ambitions.  Her  fate, 
if  permitted  to  remain  unremedied,  will  be  the  fate  of  Asia  unless 
prevented  by  a  resort  to  the  ultimo  ratio  of  nations. 

By  direction  of  the  Korean  Mission  to  the  Conference  on  Limitation 
of  Armament: 

SYNGMAN  RHEE,  Chairman. 

PHILIP  JAISOHN,  Vice  Chairman. 

HENRY  CHUNG,  Secretary. 

FRED  A.  DOLPH,  Counsellor. 

CHARLES  S.  THOMAS,  Special  Counsel. 


APPENDIX  No.  1. 

KOREA'S  APPEAL  TO  THE  AMERICAN  DELEGATION  TO  THE 
CONFERENCE  ON  LIMITATION  OF  ARMAMENT. 

KOREAN  MISSION  TO  THE 
CONFERENCE  ON  LIMITATION  OF  ARMAMENT, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  October  1, 1921. 
To  the  Hon.  CHARLES  EVANS  HUGHES,  Hon.  HENRY  CABOT  LODGE, 

Hon.  ELIHTJ  BOOT,  and  Hon.  OSCAR  W.  UNDERWOOD,  Members  of 

the  Delegation  from  the  United  States  of  America  to  the  Confer- 

ence  on  Limitation  of  Armament. 

GENTLEMEN:  We  have  been  delegated  by  the  people  of  Korea  to 
present  their  cause  to  you  and  to  the  Conference  on  Limitation  of 
Armament. 

The  Korean  question  is  one  of  the  vital  far  eastern  questions.  As 
such  it  should  be  considered  by  the  conference.  Korea  should  not  be 
held  up  merely  as  an  object  lesson  to  illustrate  the  possibilities  of 
ruthless  and  aggressive  oppression.  Her  wrongs  should  not  simply 
be  commiserated.  They  should  be  righted  if  the  objects  of  the  con- 
ference are  to  be  attained.  Twenty  million  people,  clamoring  for 
restored  independence  and  freedom  and  craving  the  justice  to  which 
they  are  beyond  all  question  entitled,  can  not  be  denied  a  hearing 
without  a  reflection  upon  the  worthy  objects  which  you  are  appointed 
to  secure. 

This  conference  soon  to  be  held  may  prove  to  be  the  most  important 
that  the  world  has  ever  knoAvn.  To  accomplish  its  end  it  must  pro- 
ceed upon  the  fundamental  premise  that  the  covenants  of  treaties 
and  agreements  between  nations  are,  and  must,  until  formally  repu- 
diated by  recognized  processes,  be  faithfully  observed  by  their  re- 
spective signatories. 

Viewed  in  the  light  of  this  principle,  the  Korean  problem  is  very 
simple.  Japan  holds  military  possession  of,  and  forces  its  sover- 
eignty upon  Korea,  without  her  consent,  in  violation  of  the  terms 
of  her  treaty  of  alliance  with  Korea,  and  in  direct  conflict  with 
other  treaties  that  were  made  by  her  at  different  times  with  that 
nation.  This  military  possession  and  enforced  sovereignty  without 
consent  is  due  to  the  *f act  that  neither  the  United  States  nor  any  of 
the  great  powers  invited  to  participate  in  the  coming  conference  used 
their  "  good  offices  "  to  prevent  it,  as  by  several  of  their  treaty  cove- 
nants with  Korea  they  solemnly  engaged  themselves  to  do. 

The  United  States  in  1882;  Great  Britain  in  1883;  Italy  in  1884; 
France  in  1886;  China  in  1899;  Belgium  in  1901;  and  other  powers 
riot  yet  officially  invited  to  this  conference,  each  deliberately  cove- 
nanted with  Korea,  that — 

If  other  powers  deal  unjustly  and  oppressively  with  either  Government,  the 
other  will  exert  their  good  offices,  on  being  informed  of  the  case,  to  bring  about 
an  amicable  arrangement. 

8 


KOREA'S  APPEAL.  9 

Each  one  of  the  nations  named  below  knew  that  in  1904  Japan  and 
Korea,  just  prior  to  the  Russo-Japanese  war,  entered  into  the  treaty 
of  alliance  to  which  we  have  referred,  and  that  by  virtue  of  such 
treaty  Japan  was  permitted  to  occupy  Korea  with  her  military 
forces  and  to  use  Korea  as  a  military  base  in  her  operations  against 
Siberian  Russia. 

But  for  that  treaty  the  war  would  have  ended  disastrously  for 
Japan,  who  without  it  would  have  been  compelled  to  attack  Port 
Arthur  with  her  navy  only.  Had  she  been  compelled  to  land  her 
troops  from  transports,  that  stronghold  might  have  proven  im- 
pregnable. Or  if  Japan  had  not  been  permitted-  to  surprise  the 
Russian  fleet  in  the  waters  of  the  Yalu,  history  might  have  recorded 
a  story  far  different  from  that  which  Japan  achieved.  Korea,  rely- 
ing upon  the  honor  of  Japan,  fulfilled  her  engagements  and  kept 
her  covenants  to  the  letter,  thereby  powerfully  contributing  to  the 
defeat  of  Russia.  Of  these  undoubted  facts  the  great  powers  are 
well  aware. 

The  compensating  clause  to  Korea  in  that  treaty  of  alliance  was 
Japan's  guaranty  of  her  territorial  integrity  and  independence.  It 
was  negotiated  at  the  instance  of  Japan.  Yet  she  has  never  recog- 
nized the  sanctity  of  that  clause,  although  she  probably  owes  to  it 
her  very  existence,  and  certainly  her  greatness,  as  a  nation.  It  is 
by  virue  of  that  treaty  and  Korea's  liberal  observance  of  it  that 
Japan  is  to-day  one  of  the  great  powers  and  a  chief  participant  in 
this  conference. 

With  the  conclusion  of  the  Russo-Japanese  War  Japan,  instead 
of  removing  her  troops  and  armed  forces  from  Korea,  as  the  treaty 
contemplated,  established  permanent  military  bases  at  Seoul,  the 
capital,  at  Peng  Yang  in  the  northwest,  at  Nannam  in  the  northeast, 
and  at  Taiku  in  the  southeast,  with  naval  bases  at  Fusan  on  the 
southern  coast  and  Wonsan  on  the  eastern,  notwithstanding  her 
naval  base  at  Darien  and  Port  Arthur  sufficiently  guarded  the  west- 
ern coast. 

Thus  the  temporary  military  possession  of  Korea,  which  Japan 
obtained  by  reason  of  the  treaty  of  alliance,  has  been  perpetuated. 
Korea  has  never  been  placed  status  in  quo,  free  to  act  without  co- 
ercion or  duress.  She  has  always  been,  and  is  now,  subject  to  the 
menace  of  troops  and  war  vessels  of  a  nation  which  secured  initial 
possession  of  Korea,  not  by  conquest,  but  by  a  treaty,  to  tide  her  over 
a  vital  crisis,  which  has  long  since  disappeared.  Had  the  American 
troops  remained  in  France,  or  the  English  in  Belgium,  and  through 
the  menace  of  their  presence  wrested  sovereignty  from  these  nations, 
the  wrong  would  have  been  no  greater  nor  more  palpable. 

Nothing  that  Japan  has  done  or  that  she  has  procured  to  be  done 
during  the  menace  and  duress  of  this  unlawful  military  occupation 
toward  securing  an  apparent  or  alleged  acquiescence  in  her  occupa- 
tion and  sovereignty  over  Korea  should  be  of  lawful  force  or  effect, 
and  especially  in  a  congress  of  nations  deliberating  to  secure  the 
enduring  peace  of  the  world. 

The  people  of  Korea  vigorously  challenge  the  assertion  that  they 
or  their  Government  ever  acquiesced  in  or  consented  to  the  assump- 
tion of  the  sovereignty  of  Japan  over  Korea.  In  this  they  are  sup- 
ported by  the  recorded  facts  of  history,  by  the  declarations  and  writ- 
S.  Doc.  109,  67-2 2 


10  KOREA'S  APPEAL. 

ten  protests  of  the  ex-Einperor,  by  the  testimony  of  your  own  min- 
isters to  Korea,  by  the  statements  of  a  horde  of  outside  witnesses, 
and  by  a  convincing  array  of  circumstances.  That  their  position  is 
correct  is  evidenced  by  the  conditions  existing  at  the  time  of  the 
alleged  acquiescence.  You  have  but  to  read  the  dispatches  from 
your  own  diplomatic  representatives  covering  the  murder  of  the 
Queen  of  Korea  at  the  instance  of  the  Japanese  ambassador,  Viscount 
Miura,  and  the  account  of  your  own  military  attache  to  be  convinced 
that  no  people  with  those  experiences  could 'possibly  voluntarily  sub- 
mit themselves  to  any  authority  imposed  through  the  agency  of  such 
appalling  deeds.  Had  Korea's  submission  been  voluntary,  these  deeds 
would  have  been  as  useless  as  they  are  horrible. 

Following  this  assumed  sovereignty  under  military  coercion  there 
has  been  much  oppression.  The  people  are  taxed  without  representa- 
tion and  have  absolutely  no  voice  in  their  own  government.  They 
are  oppressed  economically  and  have  no  redress.  Their  courts  are 
presided  over  by  Japanese  judges  and  clerks.  Japanese  teachers 
installed  in  their  schools  compel  their  children  to  learn  a  foreign 
language.  Immoral  practices  are  imposed  upon  them  that  they  abhor. 
Intellectually  they  are  being  strangled  and  are  being  reduced  to  the 
position  of  ignorant  serfs  and  slaves.  The  people  and  the  country 
are  being  exploited  for  the  sole  benefit  of  a  foreign  power  and  a  for- 
eign people. 

Although  the  world's  press  has  placed  before  the  public  thousands 
of  columns  of  news  reciting  brutalities  and  atrocities  in  detail — 
hundreds  murdered,  thousands  wounded  and  maimed;  young  girls, 
school-teachers,  and  nurses  stripped  and  paraded  before  Japanese  sol- 
diers and  officers;  churches  and  schools  burned;  thousands  placed  in 
prison  and  more  thousands  flogged,  with  death  resulting  from  the 
severity  of  the  punishment  in  over  10  per  cent  of  the  cases;  and 
although  the  great  powers  solemnly  agreed  to  use  their  "  good  offices  " 
in  any  case  of  unjust  dealing,  not  an  official  word  uttered  by  a  single 
treaty  power  has  thus  far  been  heard.  Is  it  not  for  you  to  challenge 
the  attention  of  the  conference  to  these  conditions  and,  by  recognizing 
your  country's  obligation,  renew  a  much  needed  confidence  in  the 
binding  force  of  treaty  stipulations? 

Japan  justifies  her  conduct  by  contending  that  her  occupation  of 
Korea  has  conferred  a  material  boon  upon  Koreans.  But  investi- 
gation demonstrates  that  harbors  have  been  deepened  and  improved 
for  war  vessels  and  that  railways  and  roads  have  been  extended  and 
improved  with  special  reference  to  military  and  not  for  economic 
uses.  Afforestation  is  claimed,  but  the  facts  are  that  the  101,000  acres 
afforested  are  belittled  by  the  5,391,000  acres  of  virgin  timber  cut 
over.  In  terms  of  dollars  and  cents,  there  has  been  $168,000,000 
spent  in  Korea  by  Japan  for  improvements,  and  $418,000,000  has  been 
taken  out  of  Korea  by  Japan  through  increased  taxes  over  normal 
Korean  taxes  and  increase  of  the  Korean  national  debt.  Japan  has 
taken  out  of  Korea  $250,000,000  to  assist  in  the  support  of  her  mili- 
tary machine.  If  you  would  limit  armament,  take  away  this  support. 
Korea  can  use  her  own  money  to  better  advantage.  But  if  we  con- 
cede that  Japan,  since  her  occupation  of  Korea,  has  conferred  mate- 
rial advantage  upon  her  unhappy  people,  we  may  well  ask  whether 
the  destruction  of  that  ancient  kingdom  and  the  enslavement  of  her 


KOREA'S  APPEAL.  11 

subjects  can  be  thus  compensated.  Germany  defended  her  world  war 
of  aggression  by  proclaiming  her  purpose  to  spread  the  blessings  of 
her  kultur  over  the  surface  of  the  globe,  and  Poland  was  once  parti- 
tioned for  Poland's  good.  But  the  world's  sense  of  justice  repudiated 
these  hypocrisies  and  resisted  the  former  to  the  uttermost.  Korea 
does  not  ask  for  her  country's  improvement.  She  demands  the  exer- 
cise of  those  treaty  covenants  with  other  nations  upon  which  she  has  a 
right  to  rely  for  her  protection. 

The  first  of  these  was  negotiated  with  the  United  States,  upon  its 
own  request  and  initiative.  The  other  powers  came  afterwards. 
Korea  for  centuries  preferred  isolation  to  the  society  of  other  peoples. 
Until  induced  to  reverse  her  ancient  policy  she  was  successfully  self- 
reliant.  She  changed  it,  relying  upon  the  integrity  of  your  assur- 
ances. Did  the  United  States  persuade  Korea  to  seek  American 
society  only  to  abandon  her  to  the  aggression  of  a  formidable  neigh- 
bor ?  We  can  not  believe  it. 

In  a  communication  of  this  kind  the  Korean  situation  can  only  be 
sketched.  Many  reasons  why  it  should  be  considered  by  you  and  by 
the  conference  have  not  been  touched  upon  at  all,  and  many  facts 
have  not  been  mentioned.  But  we  feel  that  this  outline  amply  sustains 
our  assertion  that  the  plight  of  Korea  involves  one  of  those  far  eastern 
problems  the  solution  of  which  by  the  conference  has  been  wisely 
suggested  by  the  United  States  as  a  precedent  condition  to  the  reduc- 
tion of  armaments  and  the  future  peace  of  the  world. 

We  appeal  to  you  for  an  opportunity  to  fully  present  the  cause  of 
the  Korean  people  to  your  delegation,  to  the  end  that  you  will  then 
either  present  it  to  the  conference  or  that  you  will  create  an  oppor- 
tunity for  us  to  do  so. 

With  assurances  of  our  profound  respect  and  esteem,  we  present  this 
appeal. 

By  direction  of  the  Korean  mission  to  the  Conference  on  Limitation 
of  Armament: 

SYNGMAN  RHEE,  C/icdrman. 
PHILIP  JAISOHN,  Vice  Chairman. 
HENRY  CHUNG,  Secretary. 
FRED  A.  DOLPH,  Counsellor. 
CHARLES  S.  THOMAS,  Special  Counsel. 


APPENDIX  No.  2. 

KOREA— WHAT  THE  CONFEREE  NATIONS  HAVE  SAID  AND 

PLEDGED. 

All  the  world  needs  the  example  of  kept  obligations.  (President  Harding  in 
speech  delivered  Nov.  14,  1921.) 

Korea  presents  to  the  conference  the  bare  record  without  comment. 
If  obligations  are  to  be  "  kept "  she  will  be  content. 

UNITED  STATES. 

Be  it  known  that  I,  Chester  A.  Arthur,  President  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  have  caused  the  said  convention  (treaty  between  United  States  and 
Korea)  to  be  made  public,  to  the  end  that  the  same  and  every  clause  and  article 
thereof  may  be  observed  and  fulfilled  with  good  faith  by  the  United  States  and 
the  citizens  thereof. 

Proclamation  of  President  Arthur  with  respect  to  treaty  with 
Korea,  dated  May  22,  1882,  ratified  by  the  Senate  January  9,  1883, 
containing  the  following  obligations  to  be  "  kept " : 

ARTICLE  I.  There  shall  be  perpetual  peace  and  friendship  between  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  and  the  King  of  Chosen  (Korea)  and  the  citizens  and 
subjects  of  their  respective  governments.  If  other  powers  deal  unjustly  or 
oppressively  with  either  government,  the  other  will  exert  their  good  offices,  on 
toeing  informed  of  the  case,  to  bring  about  an  amicable  arrangement,  thus  show- 
ing their  friendly  feeling. 

Provisions  follow  that  each  shall  appoint  diplomatic  representa- 
tives to  reside  at  the  court  of  the  other.  That  residents  of  each  may 
reside  in  the  country  of  the  other  and  shall  be  freely  permitted  to 
pursue  their  various  callings.  That  students  of  either  may  proceed 
to  the  country  of  the  other  in  order  to  study  the  language,  literature, 
laws,  or  arts,  and  shall  be  given  all  possible  protection  and  assistance. 

Taking  everything  into  consideration,  the  legation  will  hear  with  pleasure 
that  the  Shufelt  Convention  (treaty  with  Korea)  has  been  ratified.  I  think  It 
very  important  that  the  United  States  should  have  a  footing  in  Korea,  and  that 
having  opened  the  door,  we  should  not  close  it,  or  give  any  other  power  prece- 
dence. (Hon.  John  Russell  Young,  minister  to  China,  in  diplomatic  report  to 
Secretary  of  State  Frelinghuysen,  Dec.  26,  1882.) 

The  existence  of  international  relations  between  the  two  countries  (United 
States  and  Korea)  as  equal  contracting  parties  is  an  accepted  fact.  (Secretary 
of  State  Freylinghuysen,  in  ruling  dated  June  9,  1883.) 

The  position  assumed  by  this  Government  toward  Korea  since  contracting 
the  treaty  with  it  in  1882  has  in  nowise  been  affected  by  recent  events..  Korea's 
treaty  independence  since  then  has  been  for  us  an  established  and  accepted  fact. 
(Acting  Secretary  of  State  Alvey  A.  Adee,  in  ruling  dated  July  9,  1885.) 

Mr.  Inouye,  His  Majesty's  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  took  occasion  to  say 
that  the  reason  of  our  Government  in  so  promptly  ratifying  its  treaty  with 
Korea  and  accrediting  a  minister  to  that  country  gave  satisfaction  to  his  Im- 
perial Japanese  Majesty's  Government,  and  was  accepted  as  an  evidence  of 
the  policy  of  justice  so  often  manifested  by  the  United  States  toward  the  eastern 
States  of  Asia.  It  was  considered  an  act  of  friendship  toward  Japan  as  well  as 
Korea.  (Mr.  Bingham.  minister  to  Japan,  in  diplomatic  report  to  Secretary  of 
State,  Apr.  14,  1883.) 

12 


KOREA'S  APPEAL.  13 

The  intentions  of  the  Japanese  Government  with  regard  to  Korea  seem  to  be 
clearly  expresed  in  this  protocol  (treaty  of  alliance  between  Japan  and  Korea, 
djited  Feb.  2S,  1904),  and  all  my  information  leads  uie  to  believe  that  it  has 
every  intention  of  respecting  the  integrity  of  the  Korean  Empire.  (Mr.  Gri-scorn, 
minister  to  Japan,  to  Secretary  of  State,  dated  Mar.  17,  1904.) 

The  Marquis  (Ito)  was  emphatic  in  pronouncing  all  annexation  talk  as  absurd. 
(Diplomatic  report  by  American  charge  d'affaires  at  Tokyo  to  Secretary  of 
Slate,  Sept.  19,  1907.) 

GREAT  BRITAIN. 

The  treaty  between  Korea  and  Great  Britain  was  negotiated  on 
behalf  of  Great  Britain  by  Sir  Harry  Smith  Parkes,  and  is  dated 
November  26,  1883.  Its  provisions  are  in  substance  the  same  as  the 
treaty  with  the  United  States,  and  its  diplomatic  correspondence 
duplicates  the  correspondence  between  Korea  and  the  United  States. 

The  high  contracting  parties  having  mutually  recognized  the  independence 
of  China  and  Korea,  declare  themselves  to  be  entirely  uninfluenced  by  any  ag- 
gressive tendencies  in  either  country.  (First  Anglo- Japanese  Alliance,  Jan. 
30,  1902.) 

FRANCE. 

The  diplomatic  correspondence  and  treaty  relations  between  France 
and  Korea  presents  a  third  reiteration  in  substance  of  the  same  treaty 
relations  and  the  same  diplomatic  representations  as  with  the  United 
States. 

The  treaty  between  France  and  Korea  bears  date  June  4,  1886. 

ITALY. 

The  treaty  between  Italy  and  Korea  is  elated  June,  1884,  and 
presents  a  fourth  reiteration  of  the  same  treaty  and  diplomatic  rela- 
tions as  with  the  United  States. 

BELGIUM. 

The  treaty  and  diplomatic  relations  between  Korea  and  Belgium 
presents  another  and  a  fifth  reiteration  of  the  treaty  relations  with 
the  United  States.  The  treaty  with  Belgium  was  made  at  a  later 
date,  March  23,  1901. 

CHINA. 

China  recognizes  definitely  the  full  and  complete  independence  and  autonomy 
of  Korea.  (Article  I  of  the  treaty  between  Japan  and  China  (Shimoneski 
treaty),  dated  Apr.  20,  1895.) 

There  shall  be  perpetual  peace  and  friendship  between  the  Empire  of  Korea 
and  the  Empire  of  China,  and  between  their  respective  subjects,  who  shall  en- 
joy equally  in  the  respective  countries  of  the  high  contracting  parties  full  pro- 
tection and  the  advantages  of  favorable  treatment.  If  other  powers  should 
deal  unjustly  or  oppressively  with  either  Government  the  other,  on  being  in- 
formed of  the  case,  will  exert  their  good  offices  to  bring  about  an  amicable  ar- 
rangement, thus  showing  their  friendly  feelings.  (Article  I  of  the  treaty  be- 
tween China  and  Korea,  dated  Sept.  11,  1899.) 

JAPAN. 

Chosen  (Korea),  being  an  independent  State,  enjoys  the  same  sovereign  rights 
as  does  Japan.  (Treaty  between  Japan  and  Korea,  dated  Feb.  26,  1876.) 

The  independence  of  Korea  is  declared  confirmed  and  established.  (Treaty 
between  Japan  and  Korea,  dated  July  14,  1894.) 


14  KOREA'S  APPEAL. 

The  following  telegrams,  received  by  the  State  Department  on 
their  respective  dates,  were  sent  by  United  States  diplomatic  repre- 
sentatives regarding  the  murder  of  Queen  Min  of  Korea,  showing  the 
Japanese  conception  of  the  independent  rights  of  a  sister  nation : 

TOKYO,  October  9,  180.1. 

The  following  telegram  has  been  received  from  Allen,  dated  Seoul,  October  9 : 
"  Yesterday  morning  King's  father,  with  the  assistance  of  Japanese,  forcibly 
entered  royal  palace.  Two  officers  killed  in  attempting  to  save  Her  Majesty. 
Queen  and  three  ladies  murdered.  Murderers  were  Japanese  in  civilian  dress." 

DUN. 

TOKYO,  October  12,  1895. 

The  following  telegram  has  been  received  from  Allen,  dated  October  11 :  "  I 
have  received  to-day  a  detachment  of  marines  from  the  York  town.-  Charge 
d'affaires  Russia  the  same.  English  consul  sent  immediately  for  war  vessel. 
Missing  queen  deposed." 

DUN. 

TOKYO,  October  14,  18H.1. 

The  following  telegram  has  been  received  from  Allen,  dated  October  13 :  "  This 
Government  is  now  under  control  of  King's  father  and  five  traitors,  under  the 
guidance  of  Japanese.  The  condition  of  His  Majesty  pitiful.  Queen  murdered ; 
murderers  in  full  power.  His  own  life  in  imminent  peril.  *  *  *  Japanese 
minister  states  that  atrocities  were  committed  by  natives  disguised  to  repre- 
sent Japanese.  It  is  absurd.  Charge1  d'affaires  of  Russia  and  myself  saw  30 
of  them  leaving  royal  palace  just  after  atrocities  armed  with  swords.  They 
were  Japanese.  Also  a  reliable  American  military  officer  of  the  Government 
saw  Japanese  troops  enter  royal  palace  in  advance  of  insurgents,  and  they  wit- 
nessed atrocities,  but  made  no  attempt  to  prevent  them.  Sufficient  evidence 
implicating  Japanese  minister  overwhelming." 

DUN. 

SEOUL,  October  2G,  1895. 

Japanese  minister  and  officers  of  his  legation  and  army  have  been  sent  to 
Japan.  Count  Inouye  is  coming  to  Seoul  as  special  ambassador.  The  King  is 
under  strict  duress.  His  life  in  peril.  I  do  not  recognize  decrees  forced  t'ronr 
him.  Allen's  conduct  affairs  excellent. 

SILL. 

The  Japanese  ambassador,  Viscount  Miura,  was  recalled  and  was 
subjected  to  the  form  of  facing  a  Japanese  court  of  inquiry.  The 
following  excerpts  from  the  court's  findings  show  a  very  crude  ex- 
ample of  "  whitewash  " : 

The  accused,  Miura  Goro  (Japanese  ambassador  to  Korea),  assumed  his 
official  duties  September  1,  1895.  According  to  his  observations,  things  in 
Korea  were  tending  in  a  wrong  direction.  The  accused  felt  it  of  the  utmost 
importance  to  apply  an  effective  remedy  to  this  state  of  things,  and  a  confer- 
ence was  held  at  the  legation.  It  was  further  resolved  that  this  opportunity 
should  be  availed  of  for  taking  the  life  of  the  queen,  who  exorcised  over- 
whelming influence  in  the  court.  Miura  Goro  decided  to  carry  out  the  plan  by 
the  middle  of  the  month.  (Reference  is  here  made  to  a  visit  of  the  Korean 
minister  of  war  to  the  legation,  demanding  the  disbandmeut  of  the  Japanese 
troops.)  It  was  now  evident  that  the  moment  had  arrived  and  that  no  more 
delay  should  be  made.  Miura  Goro  consequently  determined  to  carry  out  the 
plot  on  the  night  of  that  very  day.  (Here  the  findings  of  the  court  of  inquiry 
abruptly  end.)  Notwithstanding  these  facts,  there  is  no  sufficient  evidence  to 
prove  that  any  of  the  accused  actually  committed  the  crime. 

The  Imperial  Government  of  Russia  and  of  Japan  recognize  definitely  the 
sovereignty  and  entire  independence  of  Korea  and  pledge  themselves  mutually 
to  abstain  from  all  direct  interference  in  the  internal  affairs  of  that  country. 
(Treaty  between  Russia  and  Japan,  dated  Apr.  25,  1898.) 

ART.  II.  The  Imperial  Government  of  Japan  shall  in  a  spirit  of  firm  friend- 
ship insure  the  safety  and  repose  of  the  Imperial  House  of  Korea. 


KOREA'S  APPEAL.  15 

ART.  III.  The  Imperial  Government  of  Japan  definitely  guarantees  the  inde- 
pendence and  territorial  integrity  of  the  Korean  Empire.  (Treaty  of  alliance 
between  Japan  and  Korea,  dated  Feb.  23,  1904.) 

In  a  circular  letter  to  the  powers,  sent  out  through  the  various 
diplomatic  agencies  of  the  Japanese  Government,  it  was  stated: 

You  are  instructed  to  communicate  to  the  Government  to  which  you  are 
accredited  that  the  occupation  of  some  ports  and  territory  of  Korea  is  found 
inevitable  in  the  prosecution  of  the  present  war  ( Japanese-Russo ) ,  but  that 
such  use  is  not  in  disregard  of  or  in  violation  of  her  independence  or  territorial 
integrity,  and  that  the  Japanese  Government  has  concluded  with  the  Korean 
Government  the  following  protocol.  (Here  followed  the  treaty  of  alliance  con- 
taining the  provision  above  quoted.) 

It  will  be  conceded  by  everyone  that  if  Japan  had  not  made  this 
treaty  of  alliance  with  Korea,  and  if  Korea  had  not  permitted  Japan 
to  occupy  "  some  ports  and  territory,"  so  as  to  enable  it  to  strike  a 
quick  and  unexpected  blow  at  Russia,  Japan  would  not  have  been 
the  victor  in  the  Japanese-Russo  War. 

We  are  quite  sure  that  if  Japan  had  not  hastened  to  assure  the 
nations  of  the  world  by  the  circular  letter  that  we  have  quoted  that 
its  military  occupation  of  Korea  was  "  not  in  disregard  of  or  in  vio- 
lation of  her  independence  or  territorial  integrity,"  and  if  Japan  had 
not  hastened  to  place  in  the  hands  of  the  powers  copies  of  the  treaty 
of  alliance  by  which  Japan  solemnly  "  guaranteed  the  independence 
and  territorial  integrity  of  Korea,"  that  the  powers  would  have  pro- 
tested and  would  not  have  permitted  that  military  occupation.  They 
would  have  considered  it  a  violation  of  Korea's  right  to  neutrality 
and  would  have  stepped  in,  under  the  terms  of  their  various  treaties 
with  Korea. 

If  these  promises  and  these  assurances  had  not  been  made  by 
Japan,  and  if  these  written  solemn  treaty  covenants  had  not  been 
made  by  Japan  guaranteeing  Korea's  independence,  will  anyone  sup- 
pose for  a  moment  that  Japan  would  have  been  permitted  to  occupy 
Korea  as  a  military  base  without  a  fight?  Koreans  would  have 
fought  as  they  did  300  years  before  when  the  Japanese  samurai, 
under  Hideyoshi,  invaded  the  country,  and  the  Japanese  would  have 
been  repulsed,  just  as  they  were  then.  Korea  is  an  oppressed  nation, 
but  history  shows  that  it  is  not  inferior.  Where  did  the  potter's 
wheel,  the  loom,  movable  type,  24-letter  alphabet,  ironclads,  bomb- 
shells, early  bronzes,  under-glazed  pottery,  and  the  main  principles 
of  the  calendar  that  you  are  using  to-day  come  from  ?  Your  museums 
and  the  British  museum  will  show  that  they  came  from  Korea.  The 
symbols  on  Korea's  flag  inspired  Confucius  to  write  his  first  classic, 
and  the  great  walls,  of  which  traces  can  still  be  found  in  Korea,  built 
centuries  before  Emperor  Chin's  time,  were  the  inspiration  and  pat- 
tern from  which  that  self-styled  "  First  Emperor  of  Chin-a  "  built 
the  great  wall  of  China. 

We  refer  to  these  things  simply  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  we  are 
really  an  intelligent  people  with  initiative,  and  if  not  oppressed, 
we  could  take  our  place  in  world  affairs  with  some  degree  of  con- 
fidence. 

In  1904  we  were  not  so  spiritless  or  so  helpless  or  so  lacking  in 
intelligence  that  we  would  have  permitted  Japan  to  occupy  our 
country  with  its  military  forces  unless  under  a  solemn  treaty  declara- 


16  KOREA'S  APPEAL. 

r' 

tion  recognizing  and  guaranteeing  our  independence.  We  trusted 
Japan  then,  it  is  true.  We  relied  upon  her  guaranty.  We  relied 
upon  the  numerous  other  treaties  that  have  been  cited  in  this  article, 
and  we  believed  then,  as  President  Harding  does  now,  in  the  sanctity 
of  "  kept  obligations'."  Are  we  wholly  to  blame  for  our  trust  or  for 
misplacing  our  confidence  ? 

The  Eusso-Japanese  war  came  to  an  end.  The  necessity  for 
Japanese  military  occupation  of  Korea  has  long  since  ceased.  The 
purpose  for  which  the  treaty  of  alliance  between  Japan  and  Korea 
was  made  has  terminated.  Yet  Japan  remains  and  has  increased 
her  military  forces  and  has  established  permanent  bases,  both  for 
land  and  naval  forces.  If  we  continue  to  rely  on  others  we  will 
perish,  unless  the  great  nations  of  the  world  respond  to  President 
Harcling's  noble  and  just  sentiment  that  obligations  are  to  be  "  kept." 


APPENDIX  No.  3. 
BRIEF  FOR  KOREA. 

(Presented  to  the  Hon.  CHARLES  EVANS  HUGHES,  Secretary  of  State.) 
PART  I.   STATEMENT  OF  THE  CASE. 

The  consideration  of  the  case  of  Korea  rests  almost  entirely  on 
conceded  facts,  and  the  principles  of  international  law  involved  are 
elementary,  requiring  but  casual  mention. 

There  are  three  periods  in  Korean  history,  considered  with  refer- 
ence to  her  foreign  relations:  (1)  The  period  of  4,215  years  prior  to 
1882,  during  which  she  maintained  her  own  independence  and  integ- 
rity by  her  own  unaided  efforts,  though  China  claimed  suzerainty; 
(2)  the  period  of  23  years,  from  1882  to  1905,  in  which  she  sustained 
diplomatic  relations  with  all  the  world,  relying  more  or  less  at  first, 
and  in  the  end  wholly,  upon  the  powers  to  sustain  her  entity,  pursu- 
ant to  the  treaties  they  made  with  her;  and  (3)  the  period  from 
1905,  in  which  she  has  suffered  from  usurpation  at  the  hands  of 
Japan. 

In  a  strict  legal  sense  we  need  not  concern  ourselves  with  the 
national  status  of  Korea  prior  to  1882.  However,  the  situation 
prior  to  1882  bears  upon  the  equities  of  the  case,  and  should  be  kept 
in  mind. 

It  is  certain  that  in  1882  the  United  States  recognized  the  inde- 
pendence and  territorial  integrity  of  Korea  by  entering  into  a  treaty 
of  amity  and  commerce  with  her  as  a  separate  national  entity.  The 
treaty  was  in  due  form.  It  was  ratified  by  the  Senate  and  in  regular 
course  it  was  formally  "  proclaimed  "  by  President  Arthur.  Japan 
was  the  first  nation  to  officially  "  congratulate  "  both  Korea  and  the 
United  States  upon  its  consummation.  This  fact  is  noted  in  the 
report  of  Hon.  John  A.  Bingham  to  Secretary  Frelinghuysen, 
April  14,  1883. 

As  though  to  emphasize  the  international  effect  of  this  treaty  in  rec- 
ognizing this  national  entity,  China  protested  the  sending  of  Korean 
ministers  to  the  United  States,  claiming  suzerainty  over  Korea.  The 
protest  was  patiently  and  fully  considered  on  its  merits  and  was 
overruled.  Later  China,  conceding  the  position  of  the  United  States, 
also  recognized  by  specific  treaty  the  independence  and  separate 
entity  of  Korea. 

Great  Britain,  France,  Germany,  Austria-Hungary,  Russia,  Bel- 
gium, Denmark,  and  Italy,  following  the  course  of  the  United  States, 
also  made  treaties  of  amity  and  commerce  with  Korea  as  a  separate 
nation. 

Japan  not  only  recognized  diplomatically  and  with  finality  the 

independence  of  Korea  by  officially  "congratulating"  both  Korea 

and  the  United  States  on  the  execution  of  the  treaty  of  1882,  but 

emphasized  the  fact  by  treaties  made  with  Korea  direct  and  by 

S.  Doc.  109,  67-2 3  17 


18  KOREA'S  APPEAL. 

recitals  of  the  fact  in  treaties  made  with  China,  Russia,  and  Great 
Britain.  We  need  only  quote  at  this  time  the  treaty  of  February  23, 
1904,  between  Korea  and  Japan,  in  which  by  Article  III — 

The  Imperial  Government  of  Japan  definitely  guarantees  the  independence 
and  territorial  integrity  of  the  Korean  Empire. 

The  United  States,  with  all  the  other  nations  named,  including 
Japan,  established  diplomatic  relations  with  Korea.  Ministers  were 
sent  to  Korea  and  Korean  ministers  were  received  and  acknowl- 
edged by  the  various  countries  with  which  the  treaties  had  been 
made. 

These  treaties  have  never  been  abrogated  by  the  direct  positive 
act  of  all  of  the  high  contracting  parties  thereto.  They  were 
lived  up  to  and  worked  under  in  entire  good  faith  until  1905,  and 
have  been  ignored  since  that  date  only  because  of  the  assertions  and 
assertive  attitude  of  Japan.  With  all  due  respect  to  Japan,  it  is  now 
known  that  those  assertions  of  Japan  are  untrue  and  that  her  assert- 
ive attitude  is  without  foundation.  The  conceded  facts  now  known 
are  not  consistent  with  the  representations  made  to  the  powers  by 
Japan  in  1905  and  since. 

It  is  one  of  the  purposes  of  this  brief  to  recall  and  emphasize  that 
fundamental  principle  of  all  law,  whether  international  or  of  what- 
ever class,  that  a  contract  or  a  treaty  is  not  abrogated  by  the  mere 
assertions  or  desires  of  a  third  party  or  nation  not  a  party  to  the 
original  contract  or  treaty. 

The  things  that  happened  to  Korea  since  1905  and  the  prior 
related  conditions  leading  to  its  present  predicament  could  have 
happened  to  any  other  nation  in  the  world  of  the  same  size  and 
military  strength. 

Citizens  in  private  life  have  been  held  up  and  robbed  because  all 
wise  laws  have  been  enacted  preventing  them  from  carrying  weapons 
with  which  to  protect  themselves.  They  have  also  been  deprived  of 
their  property  by  the  fraudulent  intrigue  of  trusted  partners  and 
agents.  The  citizen  is  not  censured  because  he  is  the  victim  of  cir- 
cumstances or  has  been  too  trusting,  rather  he  has  the  sympathy 
and  secures  the  aid  of  all  other  good  citizens.  The  highwayman  is 
punished  and  ostracised  and  the  property  of  the  defrauded  citizen 
is  returned  to  him  by  due  process  of  law. 

These  principles  and  conditions  in  private  life  hold  true  and  exist, 
or  at  least  should  hold  true  and  exist,  in  international  relations.  The 
illustration  is  given  because  the  writer  believes  it  to  be  an  exact  par- 
allel to  the  present  situation  in  Korea. 

Prior  to  1882,  for  4,215  years,  Korea  had  maintained  her  own  in- 
dependence and  integrity  by  means  of  her  own  unaided  strength, 
activity,  and  nationality.  At  times,  it  is  true,  she  was  overwhelmed 
by  Tartar  and  Mongolian  hordes,  but  she  always  eventually  emerged 
a  free  and  independent  nation. 

In  this  period,  from  1595  to  1597,  she  was  also  for  the  time  being 
overwhelmed  by  the  invasion  of  the  Japanese  Shogun  Hideyoshi, 
but  Korean  inventive  genius  and  initiative  came  to  her  aid.  The 
first  ironclad  ever  used  in  the  world  was  designed  and  used  by  Korea 
during  this  invasion,  and  with  it  the  great  Japanese  fleet  of  the  times 
was  driven  from  Korean  waters.  Another  Korean  genius  designed 
the  first  bombshell,  which  was  used  against  the  land  forces,  and 


KOREA'S  APPEAL.  19 

spreading  consternation  among  the  Nipponese  warriors,  it  drove 
them  from  the  land  of  the  "  morning  calm."  Korea  was  again  free 
and  independent  by  her  own  acts,  superior  intellectual  strength,  and 
inventive  genius. 

Following  this  Japanese  invasion,  statesmen  of  Korea  concluded 
that  the  only  way  to  have  peace  was  to  isolate  their  country  from 
the  rest  of  the  world,  and  it  became  the  hermit  Kingdom.  It  must 
be  said  in  justice  to  the  wisdom  of  their  course  that  the  little  King- 
dom did  have  profound  peace  for  300  years.  Korea  remained  iso- 
lated until  1882,  when,  at  the  bidding  of  the  United  States,  she  opened 
her  doors  to  the  world. 

From  1882  to  1905,  a  period  of  23  years,  Korea  maintained  her 
national  independence,  not  so  much  through  her  own  acts  as  there- 
tofore, but  more  through  the  moral  force  and  supposedly  binding 
provisions  of  the  various  treaties  she  had  made  with  the  nations  of 
the  world,  including  the  United  States. 

She  began  to  trust  and  to  rely  upon  these  treaties,  gradually  weak- 
ening and  giving  up  her  own  methods  of  defense,  until  ultimately 
she  found  herself  in  a  position  where  she  was  forced  to  entirely  rely 
upon  foreign  powers  and  their  solemnly  made  agreements  to  use 
their  "  good  offices  "  in  case  of  oppression. 

No  one  should  criticize  Korea  for  this  attitude  or  this  trust,  for 
in  our  innermost  consciousness  'we  must  admit  that  if  the  United 
States,  Great  Britain,  France,  Germany,  Austria-Hungary,  Russia, 
Belgium,  Denmark,  Italy,  and  China  had  come  forward  to  do  just 
the  literal,  identical  thing,  and  nothing  more,  that  they  had  all 
agreed  to  do,  namely,  to  use  their  "good  offices"  in  protest  against 
her  oppression,  Korea  would  not  have  been  in  her  present  predica- 
ment. 

She  would  still  be  free  and  independent  and  one  of  the  nations 
of  the  world;  and  with  her  4,000  years  of  history,  her  20,000,000 
people,  her  record  of  accomplishment  in  the  industrial  arts,  and  her 
intellectual  achievements,  would  at  least  par  in  importance  to  the 
great  world  brotherhood,  with  Hejaz,  Liberia,  Hayti,  Honduras, 
Guatemala,  and  many  others  recognized  by  the  League  of  Nations. 

We  can  not  conceive  of  a  single  occurrence  in  Korea  that  could 
not  have  taken  place  in  any  other  small  nation  under  the  same 
conditions  and  opposed  by  the  same  unscrupulous  forces.  Early 
in  the  year  1904  Japan  was  at  war  with  Russia  and  sought  the 
assistance  of  Korea  as  an  ally.  It  succeeded  in  obtaining  coopera- 
tion on  the  representation  that  Japan  would  definitely  guarantee 
Korean  independence.  Korea  insisted  that  the  pact  should  be  in 
writing,  resulting  in  the  treaty  between  Japan  and  Korea  dated 
February  23,  1904.  By  that  treaty,  as  we  have  already  seen,  Japan 
did  that  very  thing.  She  specifically  guaranteed  the  independence 
and  territorial  integrity  of  Korea  for  all  time. 

Accordingly  Japanese  troops  were  permitted  to  land  in  and 
traverse  Korea  as  a  short  route  to  Siberia,  including  Russian  posi- 
tions in  Manchuria,  and  the  Japanese  Navy  was  permitted  to  use 
Korean  waters  as  a  near-by  base  of  operations.  If  Korea  had  not 
consented  to  this  military  occupation  and  use  of  her  territory;  if 
she  had  taken  the  same  position  toward  Japan  that  Belgium  did 
toward  Germany,  another  history  would  have  been  written  for  the 


20  KOREA'S  APPEAL. 

Russo-Japanese  War.  Such  a  course  would  have  impeded  Japanese 
progress  sufficiently  to  have  enabled  Russia  to  mobilize  her  Army 
and  Navy  in  the  Far  East.  Korea  contributed  to,  if  she  was  not  in 
fact  wholly  responsible  for,  the  success  of  Japan  in  that  war. 
Japan's  treachery  and  ingratitude  can  not  be  adequately  expressed. 

The  Imperial  Government  of  Japan  has  never  to  this  day  with- 
drawn her  military  occupation  of  Korea  that  was  obtained  under 
the  treaty  of  1904,  by  which  it  guaranteed  the  independence  and 
territorial  integrity  of  Korea,  and  Korea  has  never  since  been 
placed  in  statu  quo,  free  to  act  without  the  dominating  and  menac- 
ing presence  of  Japanese  troops. 

Military  possession  for  a  given  purpose,  obtained  by  permission 
and  specific  treaty,  has  arbitrarily  been  turned  into  adverse  pos- 
session in  opposition  to  the  original  purposes,  which  were  to  guaran- 
tee and  further  the  independence  of  Korea. 

It  is  impossible  to  apply  any  other  principle  of  law  than  the 
obvious  and  fundamental  one,  that  initially  permitted  possession 
under  contract  can  not  be  turned  into  adverse  possession,  without 
surrender  and  placing  the  parties  in  statu  quo.  So  long  as  such 
initially  permitted  possession  under  contract  is  maintained,  it  is  in 
law,  international  as  well  as  private,  considered  as  in  pursuance 
of  the  purposes  of  the  original  permission. 

Japan  can  not  claim  sovereignty  which  she  obtained  during  the 
menace  of  military  possession,  when  the  very  purpose  of  the  original 
military  entry  and  possession,  never  surrendered,  was  to  protect 
the  independence  and  territorial  integrity  of  Korea.  This  was  the 
covenant  and  condition  exacted  by  Korea  as  a  consideration  for  her 
assistance  and  her  agreement  of  alliance  with  Japan  against  Russia, 
and  Korea  has  performed  her  covenant. 

Japan  can  only  be  considered  as  a  steward  and  guardian  for  her 
ward,  Korea,  holding  the  possession  that  she  has,  and  that  she  has 
retained  without  surrender,  in  furtherance  of  the  declared  purpose 
at  the  time,  to  guarantee  and  protect  the  independence  of  Korea. 
No  act  or  thing  that  Japan  has  done,  nor  any  act  or  thing  that  Japan 
has  procured  to  be  done,  during  the  presence  and  menace  of  military 
possession  can  change  this  fundamental  rule. 

This  all  being  absolutely  true,  the  nations  of  the  world  who  made 
treaties  with  Korea,  including  the  United  States,  must  still  regard 
Korea  as  a  separate  entity  and  the  treaties  in  force,  irrespective  of 
any  assertions  or  claims  of  Japan  to  the  contrary. 

If  there  are  those  who  would  justify  the  acts  of  Japan  in  seizing 
Korea  on  the  grounds  of  expediency,  we  can  still  ask,  "Expedient 
for  whom — Japan  or  Korea  ?  "  They  were  both  separate  entities  and 
both  had  sustained  diplomatic  relations  with  all  the  rest  of  the  world. 
They  were  neighbors  owning  separate  properties. 

It  might  be  expedient,  from  the  standpoint  of  one  neighbor,  for 
him  to  confiscate  the  property  of  his  fellow.  He  might  even  say 
that  he  was  a  better  farmer  than  his  neighbor  and  could  raise 
greater  crops,  and  that  by  having  authority  over  the  person  of  his 
unfortunate  fellow  worker  he  could  make  him  get  up  earlier  in  the 
morning  and  work  longer  hours,  and  thus  the  community  would  be 
benefited.  But  in  ordinary  affairs  NQ  do  not  consider  such  things; 
we  call  it  stealing. 


KOREA'S  APPEAL.  21 

There  may  still  be  those  not  versed  in  the  fundamentals  of  law 
and  justice,  or  being  versed,  that  for  the  time  being  forget,  who 
still  wish  to  justify  Japan's  action.  They  wish  to  consider  the  de- 
tailed acts  of  Japan.  So  be  it.  We  need  only  -to  recite  the  facts, 
without  comment  or  argument,  and  even  these  curious  doubters  will 
be  convinced.  We  give  notice  in  advance  that  it  is  a  tale  of  horror 
and  tragedy,  and  of  greed  and  exploitation,  repulsive  in  the  extreme. 

In  July,  1894,  Japan  and  Korea  signed  a  treaty  of  alliance  against 
China,  providing  that  Korea  should  facilitate  the  movement  of 
Japanese  troops  to  China  and  should  assist  in  their  sustenance,  and 
that  the  treaty  should  determine  with  the  conclusion  of  peace  with 
China.  Having  made  this  treaty,  which  was  necessary  to  her  suc- 
cess, Japan  formally  declared  war  against  China  on  August  1,  1894. 
History  records  that  Japan  was  victorious  and  the  treaty  of  Shimo- 
noseki,  April  20,  1895,  concluded  that  war. 

The  successful  outcome  of  that  war  to  Japan  gave  birth  to  her 
ambition  to  control  Asia.  She  claimed  credit  for  the  victory,  ignor- 
ing the  help  given  to  her  by  Korea,  and  sought  to  strengthen  her 
position  in  the  Far  East  by  acquiring  absolute  control  over  her  ally, 
Korea.  Although  the  war  was  concluded,  Japan  did  not  withdraw 
her  troops  from  Korea  and  the  Queen  was  using  all  her  power,  and 
the  power  of  the  great  Min  family  of  which  she  was  a  member,  to 
oppose  Japan's  encroachments  and  purposes.  Japan  determined 
upon  her  removal. 

The  Japanese  minister  to  Korea,  Viscount  Miura,  worked  out  the 
details  and  arranged  for  her  murder.  The  palace  was  surrounded 
by  Japanese  troops  and  thugs  were  sent  to  perform  the  act.  They 
murdered  the  commander  of  the  palace  guard  and  two  ladies  in  wait- 
ing before  they  finally  found  the  Queen.  She  was  cut  down,  her 
body  hacked  in  pieces,  wrapped  in  woolen  blankets,  saturated  with 
kerosene  oil,  and  burned  in  the  courtyard. 

Volumes  have  been  written  about  the  tragedy,  but  we  omit  further 

frewsome  detail.     Our  purpose  is  to  state,  as  simply  as  we  can,  what 
apan  did.     Her  reasons  for  doing  this  thing,  and  the  attitude  of  a 
nation  in  causing  or  permitting  it  to  be  done,  is  outlined  in  the  de- 
fense interposed  at  the  trial  of  Viscount  Miura.     This  was  the  justi- 
fication presented  by  his  counsel : 

He  did  only  his  duty,  as  he  was  in  charge  of  peace  and  order  in  Korea.  The 
root  of  political  trouble,  the  effects  of  which  would  have  lasted  for  a  long  time 
to  come,  was  torn  up.  Considering  the  class  of  diplomacy  prevailing  in  Korea, 
Viscount  Miura  has  accomplished  only  a  triumph. 

This  justification  was  adopted  by  the  Japanese  court  in  which  he 
was  tried.  No  other  inference  is  permissible.  The  court,  though 
finding  him  to  be  the  conspirator  who  planned  the  murder,  never- 
theless discharged  him. 

This  murder  and  this  brazen  defense  of  it  was  such  an  atrocious 
thing  that  the  conscience  of  the  world  was  aroused  in  protest  and 
Japan  was  forced  to  live  up  to  her  treaty  obligations  for  this  once. 
For  the  time  being  Japan  seemingly  acquiesced  in  the  world's  deci- 
sion, but  in  fact  sat  back,  watching  for  a  new  ju  jitsu  hold  on  the 
diplomatic  situation. 

Conditions  were  slow  in  materializing  for  Japanese  purposes  and 
she  started  a  propaganda  in  Korea  to  the  effect  that  Korea  was  being 


22  KOREA'S  APPEAL. 

menaced  by  Russia,  aided  by  China.  This  propaganda  was  success- 
ful, even  in  face  of  the  fact  that  it  was  seemingly  apparent  that 
Russia  had  already  obtained  and  established  her  objectives  in  the 
Far  East.  She  had  reached  the  eastern  seas  with  railroad  termi- 
nals established  at  Vladivostok  on  the  Japan  Sea  and  at  Port  Arthur 
and  Dairen  on  the  Yellow  Sea.  Korea  would  be  an  unnecessary 
adjunct. 

In  spite  of  this  obvious  situation  Japan  was  successful  in  her  plans, 
and  there  was  a  second  alliance  between  Korea  and  Japan,  this  time 
against  Russia.  We  have  already  had  occasion  to  detail  the  facts 
as  to  this  alliance  and  the  making  of  the  treaty  of  1904,  by  which 
Japan  definitely  guaranteed  the  independence  and  territorial  in- 
tegrity of  Korea,  in  return  for  which  guaranty  Korea  allowed  her 
territory  to  be  used  as  a  base  of  operations  against  Russia  and  Siberia. 
This  is  the  military  possession,  under  treaty  for  a  specific  purpose, 
that  Japan  has  retained  to  this  day. 

The  treaty  terminating  the  war  with  Russia  was  consummated 
at  Portsmouth  in  September,  1905,  and  its  was  no  sooner  signed  and 
out  of  the  way  than  Japan  began  her  aggressive  activities  in  Korea. 
A  treaty  establishing  a  protectorate  by  Japan  over  Korea  was  pre- 
pared and  Marquis  Ito  was  sent  to  Seoul  to  secure  its  signature. 
For  days  he  importuned  the  Emperor  and  the  cabinet  ministers  to 
carry  out  the  will  of  his  imperial  autocratic  master,  but  they  flatly 
refused.  There  were  stormy  sessions.  Threats  and  cajolery  were 
used  to  no  avail ;  finally  it  was  apparent  that  more  vigorous  methods 
must  be  adopted. 

The  palace  was  a  second  time  surrounded  by  Japanese  troops 
and  was  invaded  with  swaggering  officers  and  their  conspicuously 
armed  guards.  The  Emperor  and  the  ministers  had  been  assem- 
bled at  the  peremptory  order  of  Marquis  Ito.  They  were  argued 
with  en  masse  with  no  result,  and  then  the  three  ministers  who 
were  the  most  outspoken  in  their  condemnation  were  taken  out,  one 
by  one.  Japanese  officers  returned,  sheathing  swords  and  buckling 
holsters,  saying  to  those  who  still  sat  in  council,  "  Now  will  you 
sign?"  The  Emperor  and  his  remaining  ministers  had  every  reason 
to  believe  that  their  absent  colleagues  had  become  martyrs  to  Korean 
freedom  as  had  their  beloved  Queen  Min.  Still  they  stubbornly 
refused. 

The  details  of  this  conference  have  been  recorded  in  numerous 
historical  works.  They  are  common  knowledge.  The  protectorate 
treaty  never  was  signed  or  legally  executed,  although  Japan  an- 
nounced to  the  world  that  it  had  been.  Even  if  actually  signed, 
it  would  still  be  invalid  because -of  personal  duress. 

There  were  present  at  the  opening  of  this  conference  on  behalf 
of  Korea  the  Emperor  and  his  eight  ministers:  Hahn  Kin-sul, 
premier;  Park  Chee-soon,  vice  premier  and  minister  of  foreign 
affairs;  Min- Young-kee ;  Lee  Ha-young;  Yi  Won-yong;  Yi  Kun- 
tak;  Yi  She-yong;  and  Kwon  Choong-hyun.  The  status  of  the 
ministers  was,  of  course,  advisory.  The  final  decision  and  the  exe- 
cution of  the  document  rested  with  the  Emperor.  The  Emperor 
did  not  sign,  nor  was  he  ever  advised  to  sign  by  a  majority  of  his 
ministry. 

The  three  Yi's  did  sign.  One  of  their  rewards  for  this  act  of 
treachery  to  Korea  was  that  Yi  Won-yong  was  given  the  title  of 


KOREA'S  APPEAL.  23 

count,  with  a  bribe  of  1,000,000  yen  ($500,000).  It  is  claimed  that 
Lee  and  Kwon  consented  without  signing.  Others  claim  that  these 
two  simply  refused  to  participate.  In  any  event,  the  Emperor,  the 
premier,  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  and  Minister  Min  did  not 
sign  or  acquiesce  in  the  protectorate  in  any  manner  or  form,  but 
were  all  outspoken  and  courageous  in  their  denunciation  and  repu- 
diation of  the  acts  of  the  Japanese. 

The  Imperial  Government  of  Japan  reported  this  thing  consum- 
mated on  November  17.  1905.  and  the  world  for  the  time  being  ac- 
cepted this  misstatement  as  the  truth.  It  was  plausible  enough,  for 
the  traitor,  Yi  W°n~yong?  was  quoted  to  substantiate  their  state- 
ment. In  fact,  Yi  Wong-yong,  fraudulently  signing  himself  as  act- 
ing minister  of  foreign  affairs,  although  Park  Che-soon  was  the  min- 
ister, instructed  Kim  Yun-chung,  another  Korean  traitor,  then  sta- 
tioned at  Washington  as  charge  de  affaires  for  Korea,  to  announce  the 
treaty  to  the  United  States  and  to  turn  the  legation  over  to  the  Japa- 
nese. This  Kim  did,  and  returning  to  Korea  was  rewarded  by  Japa- 
nese for  his  treachery  by  being  made  prefect  of  Chemulpo,  later  coun- 
sellor in  Chula  Province,  and  was  given  a  vast  estate  of  several  thou- 
sand acres. 

Secretary  of  State  Root  had  no  means  of  knowing,  at  the  time,  that 
Japan's  statement  of  the  signing  of  the  protectorate  treaty  was  un- 
true, nor  that  Yi  Won-yong  and  Kim  Yun-chung  had  been  bribed  to 
misrepresent  the  facts  to  him,  and  accordingly  recognized  the  Japa- 
nese protectorate  of  Korea  and  withdrew  the  diplomatic  representa- 
tives of  the  United  States  to  Korea. 

In  the  meantime  the  Emperor  had  become  convinced  by  the  atti- 
tude of  Japan  of  its  ultimate  purposes  and  in  October,  1905,  had  dis- 
patched his  faithful  friend  and  confidant,  Prof.  Homer  B.  Hulbert, 
an  American,  to  Washington  with  a  protest  to  the  United  States  and 
asking  its  aid  and  "  good  offices." 

Prof.  Hulbert  arrived  in  Washington  almost  on  the  very  day  it  is 
alleged  the  treaty  was  signed.  It  was  useless  for  him  to  attempt  to 
get  Kim  Yun-chung,  the  acting  charge  de  affaires  for  Korea,  to  pre- 
sent the  protest,  because  the  charge  was  in  Japan's  pay,  and  he  was 
delayed  in  seeing  Secretary  Root  until  after  the  formal  recognition 
of  the  Japanese  protectorate  had  taken  place. 

He  did  finally  see  Secretary  Root,  however,  but  under  the  circum- 
stances was  not  formally  received  as  a  representative  of  Korea.  The 
protest  of  the  Emperor  was  delivered  to  the  State  Department  and 
simply  became  a  part  of  its  confidential  files.  The  next  day  Prof. 
Hulbert  received  a  cable  from  the  Emperor  denying  the  execution  of 
the  protectorate  treaty  and  it  was  promptly  delivered  to  the  State 
Department  and  it.  too,  became  a  part  of  the  files  of  the  department. 

After  the  announcement  of  the  protectorate  the  Emperor  for  all 
practical  purposes  was  a  Japanese  prisoner,  confined  in  his  own 
country.  No  one,  except  that  he  was  a  pronounced  pro-Japanese, 
was  allowed  to  see  him.  Seasoned  and  experienced  correspondents 
from  the  leading  world's  newspapers  were  sent  to  interview  him,  but 
without  success.  Prof.  Hulbert,  his  faithful  friend,  did  manage  to  see 
him  in  spite  of  Japanese  espionage,  and  the  Emperor  delivered  to  him 
credentials  to  the  powers  with  which  Korea  had  made  treaties,  reciting 
the  fraudulent  character  of  the  protectorate  and  asking  the  "good 
offices"  of  those  nations  to  assist  Korea  in  her  predicament. 


24  KOREA'S  APPEAL. 

However,  Prof.  Hulbert,  alone  and  unaided,  could  not  accomplish  a 
great  deal,  except  to  persist  in  his  efforts  to  inform  the  world,  in  season 
and  out,  of  the  f  audulent  character  of  Japanese  usurpation  in  Korea. 
This  he  did  with  a  faithfulness  and  self-sacrifice  that  we  may  expect 
from  a  red-blooded  American,  fighting  for  the  weak  and  oppressed. 

Supplementing  the  protests  and  credentials  delivered  to  Prof. 
Hulbert,  the  Emperor  did  succeed  in  getting  out  credentials  to  pleni- 
potentiaries to  appear  before  The  Hague  Internatioanl  Peace  Con- 
ference. They  bore  date  April  20,  1907,  and  were  issued  to  Ye  Sang- 
sul,  an  official  of  the  second  rank;  Ye  Choon,  ex-judge  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  Korea,  and  Prince  Ye  We-chong.  Prince  Ye  was  the 
son  of  Ye  Pom-chin,  former  Korean  Minister  to  Washington  from 
1896  to  1900  and  the  grandnephew  of  the  Emperor.  Upon  learning 
of  this  act  the  Imperial  Government  of  Japan  promptly  caused 
Prince  Ye  to  be  condemned  to  death,  and  Ye  Sang-sul  and  Ye  Choon 
were  sentenced  to  life  imprisonment. 

Japan  sought  to,  and  for  all  practical  purposes  did,  vitiate  the 
credentials  issued  to  Prof.  Hulbert  and  the  envoys  to  The  Hague 
conference,  by  announcing  the  abdication  of  the  Emperor  who  had 
signed  the  credentials.  Those  who  believed  the  announcement,  of 
course,  considered  the  credentials  automatically  canceled.  This 
announcement  was  made  July  19,  1907,  and  five  days  later,  on  the 
24th,  the  subsidized  Korean  traitor,  Yi  Won-yong,  purporting  to  act 
for  Korea,  signed  a  treaty  with  Marquis  Ito,  representing  Japan, 
turning  over  to  Marquis  Ito,  as  Japanese  resident  general,  the  entire 
governmental  functions  of  Korea,  internal  and  otherwise. 

It  is  impossible  to  believe,  in  view  of  the  Emperor's  attitude 
and  many  public  protests,  that  the  Emperor  ever  actually  and  of 
his  own  volition  consented  to  any  of  these  acts  that  Japan  an- 
nounced that  he  had  promulgated.  In  any  event,  on  the  theory 
that  "  dead  men  tell  no  tales,"  he  was  poisoned  on  January  24, 
1919.  His  death  was  kept  a  secret  for  some  days  and  finally  it  was 
officially  announced  that  he  had  died  of  apoplexy. 

The  crown  prince  was  an  unfortunate — a  mental  deficient — and 
being  born  of  Queen  Min  in  those  troublesome  times  preceding  her 
murder  he  came  into  the  world  with  no  chance.  The  very  terrors 
and  ordeals  through  which  his  mother  had  passed  were  to  shield 
him.  He  was  born  without  means  of  ordinary  comprehension  and 
he  believes  to-day  the  irrefutable  proof  before  the  world  by  which  it 
will  condemn  Japan's  duplicity. 

Japan  did  not  balk  at  making  use  of  this  unfortunate  to  further 
her  purposes.  Late  in  August,  1907,  after  the  Japanese  had  an- 
nounced the  abdication  of  Emperor  Yi,  the  crown  prince  was 
crowned  Emperor,  "  amid  the  sullen  silence  of  a  resentful  people." 
One  historian  records : 

"  The  Japanese  authorities  who  controlled  the  coronation  cere- 
mony did  all  they  could  to  prevent  publicity.  In  this  they  were 
well  advised.  No  one  who  looked  upon  the  new  Emperor  as  he  en- 
tered the  hall  of  state,  his  shaking  frame  upborne  by  two  officials, 
or  as  he  stood  later  with  open  mouth,  fallen  jaw,  indifferent  eyes, 
and  face  lacking  even  a  flickering  gleam  of  intelligent  interest,  could 
doubt  that  the  fewer  who  saw  this  the  better." 

He  was  known  throughout  the  world  as  the  "  puppet  Emperor," 
and,  of  course,  the  Japanese  did  with  him  as  they  willed.  Edicts 


KOREA'S  APPEAL.  25 

were  issued  in  his  name  that  probably  never  saw,  or,  seeing  them, 
could  not  comprehend  beyond  the  bright  red  seals  and  yellow  ribbon. 

The  first  order  was  to  disband  the  Korean  army,  small  as  it  was 
and  as  helpless  as  it  was,  with  the  more  numerous  Japanese  troops 
occupying  all  places  of  vantage.  The  different  detachments  were 
ordered  to  report  at  a  given  point  ;' without  arms,'-  and  the  order 
of  disbandment  was  read  to  them.  Many  of  them  refused  and  fought 
with  bare  hands.  They  were  shot  down,  dying  as  a  final  protest 
against  this  usurpation  of  their  country's  freedom. 

Eventually  the  Japanese  tired  of  the  red  tape  necessary  to  con- 
tinue the  form  and  pretense  of  a  Korean  Government  with  this  un- 
fortunate puppet  Emperor  and  in  1910  came  out  boldly  with  their 
rescript  of  annexation.  . 

Of  course,  this  was  their  objective  and  their  intention  trom  the 
beginning.  Yet  up  to  the  very  day  of  annexation  they  had  always 
denied  it  to  the  world.  At  each  aggressive  step  plausible  excuses 
were  given,  and  the  nations  of  the  world  were  reassured  time  and 
again  that  Japan  had  no  intention  of  finally  annexing  Korea. 
Marquis  Ito,  the  first  governor  general,  characterized  "  all  annex- 
ation talk  as  absurd  "  and  this  cry  was  taken  up  and  reiterated  by 
all  Japanese  officials  and  diplomats  with  a  perfect  hypocrisy  that 
misled  the  world. 

It  has  sometimes  been  urged  that  Korea  by  the  treaty  of  February 
23,  1904,  and  a  supplemental  treaty  made  in  August  of  that  same 
year,  after  Japanese  troops  had  invested  the  country,  placed  hejjself 
so  completely  under  Japanese  control  as  to  destroy  the  provisions  of 
the  various  treaties  with  other  powers,  including  the  treaty  with 
the  United  States.  Just  how  the  making  of  a  treaty,  in  which  Korea 
exacted  that  Japan  should  guarantee  her  independence  and  integrity, 
should  affect  Korean  treaties  with  other  powers  we  can  not  com- 
prehend. 

In  any  event,  Japan  did  not  make  any  such  claims  at  the  time. 
Mr.  Takahira  in  transmitting  a  copy  of  the  August,  1904,  treaty  to 
Mr.  Adee,  of  the  State  Department,  on  August  30,  1904,  said : 

"SiR:  Under  instructions  from  His  Imperial  Majesty's  minister 
for  foreign  affairs,  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit,  etc.  *  *  *  In 
communicating  this  agreement  to  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  I  am  instructed  to  say  that  it  is  nothing  more  than  the  natural 
consequence  or  development  of  the  protocol  concluded  between  the 
Japanese  and  Korean  Governments  on  February  23,  1904,  which  I 
had  the  honor  to  transmit  at  that  time  for  the  information  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States.  I  am  further  directed  to  say  that 
the  agreement  does  not  in  anywise  interfere  with  the  full  operation 
or  validity  of  Korea's  existing  treaties." 

To  which  Mr.  Adee  replied,  September  2,  1904 : 

"  SIR  :  *  *  *  In  reply  I  have  the  honor  to  say  that  the  depart- 
ment has  taken  note  of  your  statement  of  your  Government's  purpose 
in  negotiating  the  agreement  and  its  views  regarding  the  effect  of  the 
agreement." 

The  foregoing  is  a  bare  outline  of  the  Korean  situation  from  a 
purely  legal  standpoint.  It  is  but  the  preliminary  statement  of  the 
case,  that  the  international  jurist  would  make  in  support  of  his  final 
conclusions.  Within  its  compass  all  other  questions  are  but  collat- 
eral and  incidental. 


26  KOREA'S  APPEAL. 

The  methods  used  by  Japan,  whether  humane  or  otherwise,  in 
dominating  and  controlling  Korea,  and  whether  good  or  bad  eco- 
nomically, are  immaterial.  The  gist  of  the  situation  is  the  domi- 
nation and  control  without  right — the  destruction  of  the  indepen- 
dence and  freedom  of  a  nation. 

There  may  still  be  those  who  will  say  that  Japanese  domination 
has  been  a  boon  to  Korea,  and  that  she  has  profited  in  a  material 
way  by  improvements  and  economic  development.  But  the  Korean 
living  in  a  mud  hovel  on  the  hillside,  driven  there  from  his  fertile 
little  field  in  the  valley,  or  his  comfortable  home  in  the  city  by  the 
ruthless  hand  of  the  usurper,  can  not  acquiesce  in  this  statement. 
What  profit  is  it  to  him,  whether  there  are  more  miles  of  railroad, 
more  waterworks,  more  good  roads,  and  more  commercial  activity,  if 
he  has  no  part  in  the  common  prosperity,  and  if  all  the  benefits  go 
to  the  foreign  usurpers?  It  was  his  land.  The  natural  resources 
were  his  and  it  was  his  little  country.  He  can  not  help  but  reflect 
that,  after  all,  it  was  his  property,  and  his  taxes,  and  the  sweat  of  his 
brow  that  created  this  prosperity,  and  for  whom?  For  a  foreign 
usurper  that  he  hates  with  all  his  soul.  There  are  20,000,000  people 
in  Korea  thinking  of  just  these  things,  along  with  thoughts  of  dear 
ones  killed,  flogged,  and  maimed,  and  of  women  outraged  in  the 
process. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  Japan  does  not  claim  to  have  expended  over 
$75,000,000  in  the  material  improvements  of  Korea  by  way  of  rail- 
roads, good  roads,  and  public  improvements.  Yet  she  has  increased 
the  Korean  national  debt  to  $60,000,000  more  than  it  was  when  she 
seized  Korea,  and  has  collected  $55,000,000  in  excess  taxes  from 
Koreans  over  and  above  the  average  normal  taxes  in  Korea  prior  to 
her  occupation.  The  Korean  feels  that  with  $115,000,000  he  could 
have  made  $75,000,000  of  improvements  just  as  well  and  with  a 
better  understanding  of  his  own  wants  and  desires. 

Japan,  in  trying  to  govern  20,000,000  people  against  their  will,  all 
thinking  these  thoughts  and  with  this  hate  in  their  hearts,  has  exe- 
cuted 50,000,  has  placed  over  700,000  in  jail  at  one  time  and  another, 
and  has  flogged  close  to  300,000 — all  because  they  did  think  those 
thoughts  and  did  resent  this  treatment  just  as  we  would  have  done 
under  the  same  conditions.  From  Korea  have  come  such  gruesome 
tales  of  murder,  maiming,  rape,  injustice,  and  oppression  as  come 
from  all  militaristic  governments  of  an  unwilling  people.  The  re- 
sults are  horrifying,  but  the  primary  cause  is  very  simple.  The  in- 
herent right  of  a  whole  people  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness  is  being  violated. 

Japan  has  been  relentless  in  her  oppression.  Koreans  have  no  vote 
and  no  voice  in  their  own  government.  Yet  they  must  pay  taxes  at 
a  rate  twelve  times  as  great  as  it  was  when  Japan  took  possession 
of  governmental  affairs.  The  railroads,  iron  mines,  coal  mines,  for- 
ests, and  other  economic  resources  have  been  seized  and  are  being 
operated  without  compensation,  and  without  credit  being  given,  to 
Korea  as  a  Province  or  district. 

Crown  lands  and  public  lands  have  been  seized  to  be  exploited  for 
Japanese  settlers,  and  private  lands  have  been  wrested  from  their 
owners  by  devious  ways  to  become  property  of  the  Japanese-owned 
Oriental  Development  Co.  Thousands  or  acres  of  poppy  fields 


KOREA'S  APPEAL.  27 

flourish  where  rice  and  grain  once  grew — to  enrich  the  Government 
opium  monopoly  of  Japan. 

The  courts  are  presided  over  by  Japanese  judges  with  Japanese 
clerks  and  bailiffs,  and  over  200,000  Koreans  have  been  convicted, 
without  trial,  by  summary  judgment,  presumed  to  be  guilty  when 
charged. 

Schools  are  plentiful  for  Japanese,  but  few  and  far  between  for 
Koreans.  One  code  of  law  applies  to  Koreans  and  another  to  Jap- 
anese, and  so  on  down  through  all  of  the  things  that  go  to  make  up 
life  and  liberty.  All  are  denied  to  Korea. 

The  question  may  be  running  in  the  reader's  mind  as  to  what  the 
Koreans  have  been  doing.  We  have  already  detailed  what  the  mem- 
bers of  the  royal  house  did.  They  did  everything  that  mortal  man 
could  do.  They  resisted,  protested,  and  finally  Queen  Min  and 
Emperor  Yi  died  martyrs  to  their  country. 

The  people  themselves  were  held  in  leash  during  the  lifetime  of 
the  old  Emperor  by  their  trust  in  him  and  their  hope  that  he  would 
be  able  to  find  a  way  to  right  their  wrongs. 

Upon  his  death,  on  January  24,  1919,  all  restraint  was  thrown  off, 
and  the  societies  for  Korean  freedom,  secretly  organized,  began  to 
function.  They  included  in  their  membership  at  least  95  per  cent  of 
all  Korean  men  and  women.  Plans  had  been  discussed  for  many 
months  and  were  complete  in  every  detail. 

The  people  had  determined  to  demand  of  Japan  the  restored  inde- 
pendence of  their  country,  and  had  agreed  upon  the  republican  form 
of  government  patterned  after  that  of  the  United  States.  The  dec- 
laration of  independence  and  the  constitution  had  been  drawn  and 
agreed  to,  as  to  form,  by  referendum  to  all  the  people. 

The  33  men  who  were  to  sign  the  declaration  and  deliver  it  to 
Japan  had  been  elected.  Every  one  of  them  knew  that  it  meant 
death  or  life  imprisonment  unless  the  movement  should  prove  suc- 
cessful. Yet  there  were  contests  for  the  place  of  honor,  finally  ad- 
justed by  impartially  dividing  the  men  among  the  different  sects 
and  walks  of  life  according  to  numerical  strength. 

There  had  been  heated  discussions  as  to  the  method  to  be  adopted 
in  asking  for  their  restored  independence.  There  were  advocates  of 
force  who  argued  that  the  20,000,000  Koreans  could  seize  the  300,000 
Japanese,  and  triumphing  in  a  hand-to-hand  struggle,  regain  pos- 
session of  their  Government  by  quick  and  decisive  action. 

These  advocates  were  opposed  by  those  who  insisted  upon  literally 
following  the  doctrines  of  Christianity.  They  were  idealists.  They 
would  not  resort  to  force,  but  would  make  their  demands  and  hold 
passive  demonstrations.  Surely  their  cause  was  right,  and  the  world 
would  take  notice.  The  countries  that  had  at  least  bound  them- 
selves morally  to  protect  them  from  oppression  would  step  forward, 
and  by  their  protests  and  influence  with  Japan  procure  restored  in- 
dependence for  Korea. 

They  did  not  believe  that  international  justice  was  dead,  or  that 
the  powers  would  be  forgetful  of  their  covenants  if  the  facts  were 
pressed  home.  The  practical  side  of  their  argument  was  that  to 
resort  to  force  would  alienate  the  sympathies  of  the  powers,  and 
even  though  they  might  be  temporarily  successful,  they  would  even- 
tually lose  the  support  of  the  nations  of  the  world. 


28  KOBE  A 'S   APPEAL. 

It  was  finally  decided  that  they  would  stand  up  before  the  bar  of 
justice  of  the  world  as  dignified  gentlemen,  presenting  their  case  in 
regular  orderly  manner  without,  in  any  sense,  taking  the  law  in 
their  own  hands. 

Reflecting  upon  it  we  know  they  are  right,  and  that  their  final 
decision  as  to  the  methods  of  presenting  their  case  to  the  world  was 
right  from  both  a  practical  and  an  ideal  standpoint.  In  private 
life  we  give  little  consideration  to  the  man  who  takes  the  law  in 
his  own  hands,  no  matter  what  the  provocation.  We  must  com- 
mend their  judgment  and  their  discretion  as  well  as  their  idealism. 

Promptly  at  an  appointed  hour  the  men  selected  to  sign  the  decla- 
ration of  independence  met  at  a  well-known  restaurant  in  Seoul,  held 
a  farewell  banquet,  signed  the  declaration,  and  then,  advising  the 
Japanese  officials  of  what  they  had  done,  calmly  waited.  They  were 
arrested.  No  man  resisted;  in  fact,  two  who  were  late  in  arriving 
subsequently  presented  themselves  and  insisted  upon  being  placed 
with  their  fellow  countrymen. 

This  occurred  on  March  1, 1919,  and  the  33  patriots  are  still  in  prison, 
except  one  who  subsequently  escaped  and  two  who  have  since  died 
from  the  exposure  and  privations  of  their  prison  life.  The  chair- 
man or  leader,  Son  Pyung-hi,  died  March  1,  1921,  on  the  second 
anniversary  of  the  independence  movement  that  he  helped  to 
inaugurate. 

This  independence  movement  had  been  timed  and  prearranged. 
The  declaration  was  signed  at  1  o'clock,  and  promptly  at  2  o'clock 
322  men  arose  in  322  districts  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of 
Korea  and  commenced  the  formal  reading  of  the  declaration  of 
independence  before  assembled  crowds  of  Korean  citizens.  Korean- 
boy  scouts  began  the  delivery  of  copies  of  the  declaration  to  every 
household  and  to  every  Japanese  official  in  the  district.  If  a  reader 
or  a  boy  scout  was  shot  down  there  was  always  another  to  take  his 
place. 

The  world  is  familiar  with  the  methods  adopted  by  Japan  in  her 
attempts  to  suppress  this  movement.  Notwithstanding  the  aroused 
watchfulness  and  activity  of  Japan,  the  constitution  of  the  Republic 
of  Korea  was  adopted  and  representatives  to  the  Korean  Congress 
elected.  These  representatives  assembled  on  April  22,  1919,  and 
unanimously  elected  Dr.  Syngman  Rhee  president,  and  his  cabinet 
ministers  were  nominated  and  confirmed.  In  clue  course  the  Korean 
commission  to  America  and  Europe  was  selected,  and  your  humble 
servant,  the  writer  of  this  brief,  was  made  legal  adviser. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  during  all  this  time  Korea  was  under 
the  most  strict  censorship.  Free  speech  was  denied ;  public  gather- 
ings were  prohibited ;  newspapers  were  suppressed.  Yet  the  Koreans 
did  meet  and  did  discuss  their  political  predicament  and  the  proper 
remedies  for  it  with  a  thoroughness  and  attention  to  detail  that  is 
astonishing.  They  formulated  a  declaration  of  independence  and  a 
constitution  for  the  government  of  their  country  that  are  models, 
and  arranged  for  their  promulgation  and  adoption  down  to  the  last 
legal  formality.  The  constitution  was  engraved  by  hand  on  blocks 
of  wood,  and  millions  of  copies  were  printed  by  presses  located  in 
caves  and  sometimes  in  tombs  of  secluded  graveyards,  and  were 
distributed  broadcast,  together  with  like  copies  of  the  declaration  of 
independence,  ballots,  and  other  necessary  literature. 


KOREA'S  APPEAL.  29 

We  wonder  how  this  could  be  done;  yet  consider  that  there  are 
thousands  of  educated  Koreans  graduated  from  American  and  Euro- 
pean universities.  It  is  not  a  disorganized  mob  with  ignorant  lead- 
ers. It  is  a  thoughtful,  studious  people  with  just  grievances;  they 
know  they  have  been  wronged  and  propose  that  the  world  shall 
know  it. 

Dr.  Khee,  the  President,  is  a  graduate  of  Harvard,  and  holds  a  de- 
gree from  Princeton.  It  is  said  that  there  are  as  many  Korean  con- 
gressmen in  proportion  to  their  number  who  are  graduated  from 
English,  American,  French,  and  German  universities  as  there  are 
university  graduates  among  our  own  Congressmen.  It  is  no  longer 
a  question  whether  Koreans  have  the  ability  to  govern  themselves. 
They  have  demonstrated  that  fact  by  their  activities  and  organizing 
ability  in  this  independence  movement  in  the  face  of  such  obstacles. 

All  of  these  things  being  true  what  can  be  done  ?  There  is  one  thing 
the  United  States  should  do  in  any  event.  It  made  a  treaty  with. 
Korea  which  provides : 

"  If  other  powers  deal  unjustly  or  oppressively  with  either  Govern- 
ment the  other  will  exert  their  good  offices,  on  being  informed  of  the 
case,  to  bring  about  an  amicable  arrangement,  thus  showing  their 
friendly  feelings." 

Korea  performed  her  part  of  that  treaty  and  gave  to  the  United 
States  many  commercial  advantages  that  are  now  denied  our  citizens. 
All  of  her  so-called  western  improvements  were  initiated  by  Ameri- 
cans during  their  diplomatic  relations  with  us  under  that  treaty.  The 
kindliest  feeling  of  friendship  and  cooperation  between  Koreans  and 
Americans  existed,  and  still  exists,  but  the  Koreans  are  helpless.  It 
seems  to  us  that  the  United  States  is  bound  to  interpose  its  "  good 
offices  "  in  protest  to  Japan  against  this  oppression  of  Korea,  and  it 
should  in  good  faith  use  all  of  its  powers  of  persuasion  and  argument 
to  induce  Japan  to  remedy  the  wrongs  that  she  has  done  Korea. 

PART  II.   REFERENCES   AND   AUTHORITIES    SUPPORTING    THE   TEXT 

OF  PART  I. 

TREATY   AND  DIPLOMATIC   RELATIONS   BETWEEN  THE   UNITED   STATES   AND 

KOREA. 

PROCLAMATION    BY  PRESIDENT   CHESTER   A.  ARTHUR,   DATED   JUNE   4,    1883. 

Whereas  a  treaty  of  peace  and  amity  and  commerce  and  naviga- 
tion between  the  United  States  and  the  Kingdom  of  Korea  was 
concluded  May  22,  1882,  as  follows : 

(Treaty  is  here  inserted  verbatim.) 

And  whereas  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  by  resolution  of 
January  9,  1883,  did  advise  and  consent  to  the  ratification  of  said 
treaty,  two-thirds  of  the  Senators  present  concurring, 

Now,  therefore,  be  it  known  that  I,  Chester  A.  Arthur,  President 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  have  caused  the  said  convention  to 
be  made  public,  to  the  end  that  the  same  and  every  clause  and  article 
thereof  may  be  observed  and  fulfilled  with  good  faith  by  the  United 
States  and  the  citizens  thereof.  * 

CHESTER  A.  ARTHUR. 

By  the  President, 

FREDK.  T.  FRELINGHUYSEN, 

Secretary  of  State. 


30  KOREA'S  APPEAL. 

ABSTRACT   0¥   TREATY   THUS   PROCLAIMED. 

Article  1  provides: 

There  shall  be  perpetual  peace  and  friendship  between  the  President  of  the 
United  States  and  the  King  of  Chosen  and  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  their 
respective  Governments.  If  other  powers  deal  unjustly  or  oppressively  with 
either  Government,  the  other  will  exert  their  good  offices  on  being  informed  of 
the  case  to  bring  about  an  amicable  arrangement,  thus  showing  their  friendly 
feelings. 

Article  2  relates  to  exchange  of  diplomatic  and  consular  repre- 
sentatives. 

Article  3  provides  that  United  States  vessels  wrecked  on  coast  of 
Corea  shall  be  carefully  salvaged  by  Corea. 

Article  4  grants  to  the  United  States  exterritorial  jurisdiction  over 
its  citizens  in  Corea. 

Article  5  provides  that  merchants  and  merchant  vessels  shall 
reciprocally  pay  duties  and  tonnage  established  at  the  port  of  entry 
no  higher  than  those  levied  against  citizens  of  most  favored  nation. 

Article  6  provides  for  reciprocal  rights  of  residence  and  pro- 
tection of  citizens  of  both  nations  in  the  territory  of  the  other. 

Article  7  is  prohibitory  of  the  exporting  or  importing  of  opium, 
in  either  country. 

Article  8  reserves  to  Corea  the  right  in  case  of  famine  to  forbid 
the  importation  of  breadstuffs,  and  prohibits  the  United  States 
from  trading  in  red  ginseng. 

Article  9  regulates  the  purchase  and  importation  of  arms  and 
ammunition. 

Article  10  grants  reciprocal  rights  to  citizens  of  the  other  to 
employ  native  labor  while  residing  in  the  territory  of  the  other. 

Article  11  provides: 

Students  of  either  nationality  who  may  proceed  to  the  country  of  the  other, 
in  order  to  study  the  language,  literature,  laws,  or  arts  shall  be  given  all  pos- 
sible protection  and  assistance  in  evidence  of  cordial  good  will. 

Article  14  contains  the  usual  "  most-favored-nation  "  clause. 

LIST    OF    AMERICAN    MINISTERS    TO    KOREA. 

Hon.  L.  H.  Foote,  appointed  in  1883.  Staff,  Gustave  Goward, 
secretary;  Charles  L.  Scudder,  private  secretary,  with  Piere  L. 
Juoy  of  Smithsonian  Institute  as  attache.  Purchased  legation  resi- 
dence and  title  later  placed  in  United  States. 

Hon.  William  H.  Parker,  appointed  in  1886 ;  Hon.  Hugh  A.  Dins- 
more,  appointed  in  1887 ;  Hon.  Augustine  Heard,  appointed  in  1890 ; 
Hon.  John  M.  B.  Sill,  appointed  in  1894;  Dr.  Horace  N.  Allen,  ap- 
pointed in  1897;  Hon.  Edwin  V.  Morgan,  appointed  in  1905. 

AMERICAN  ACTIVITIES  IN  KOREA  DURING  DIPLOMATIC  PERIOD. 

July  25,  1883,  United  States  asked  to  supply  advisers  and  military 
officers. 

December  18,  1883.  Korea  purchased  American  breech-loading 
rifles. 

May  31,  1884.  U.  S.  S.  Trenton  arrived  with  returning  Korean 
embassy,  headed  by  Min  Yong-ik. 

July  26,  1884.  Middleton  &  Co.  given  concession  to  navigate 
Korean  waters. 


KOREA  S  APPEAL.  31 

July  31,  1884.  The  American  Trading  Co.  was  given  right  to 
cut  timber  and  made  contract  to  furnish  Korea  Gatling  guns  and 
rifles. 

July  31,  1884.  Joseph  Rosenbaum  started  plant  to  manufacture 
glass. 

September  20,  1884.  Dr.  H.  N.  Allen  appointed  physician  to 
the  Korean  Government. 

February  25,  1885.  Korean  Government  Hospital  opened  under 
direction  of  Dr.  Allen. 

1885.  Rev.  H.  G.  Underwood,  for  Presbyterian  missions,  and  Rev. 
H.  G.  Appenzeller,  for  Methodist  missions,  arrived  and  began  their 
organization  work. 

1886.  Water  power  powder  mill  erected  for  Korea  by  W.   D. 
Townsend. 

1886.  Government  medical  school  established  by  Dr.  Allen.  Heron, 
and  Underwood. 

1886.  Mr.  O.  N.  Denny,  an  American,  made  vice  president  of  the 
home  office  and  director  of  foreign  affairs. 

1886.     Korean  Government  bought  steamer  Hairiong. 

1886.  Profs.  Hulbert,  Gilmore,  and  Bunker,  sent  by  United  States 
at  request  of  Korea,  arrived  and  established  schools. 

1886.  Dr.  Amie  Ellers  was  appointed  physician  to  the  Queen. 
Succeeded  later  by  Dr.  Lillias  Horton,  later  Mrs.  Underwood. 

1886.     American  schooner  Pearl  engaged  in  pearl  fisheries. 

1886.     Edison  Co.  erected  electric  light  plant. 

September  27,  1886.  Korean  mission  to  United  States  turned  back 
by  Chinese  men-of-war.  Later  were  escorted  past  Chinese  men-of- 
war  by  U.  S.  S.  Ossi-pee. 

1888.  Cols.  Neinstead,  Dye,  Cummins,  and  Lee,  Americans,  ar- 
rived to  drill  Korean  troops. 

1888.  Korean  telegraph  line  from  Seoul  to  Fusan  completed  by 
T.  E.  Hallifax. 

1889.  Williard  Pierce,  American  mining  engineer,   arrived  for 
Korean  Government,  and  American  experts  built  quartz  mill. 

1890.  Hon.  Clarence  R.  Greathouse  made  legal  adviser  to  Korean 
Government.     Later  made  postmaster  General. 

1892.  Gen.  Legendre,  an  American,  sent  to  Tokyo  to  represent 
Korea  in  fisheries'  negotiations. 

1893.  Korean  commission  sent  to  "World's  Fair  at  Chicago. 

1895.  Mining  concessions  granted  to  James  R.  Morse.     Conveyed 
to  Korean  Mining  &  Development  Co.  of  New  Jersey,  and  Oriental 
Consolidated  Mining  Co.  of  West  Virginia,  and  to  Hunt  Fassett  &  Co. 

1896.  Concessions  for  railway  from  Seoul  to  Chemulpo  granted  to 
Americans. 

1896.  J.  H.  Dye,  American  civil  engineer,  appointed  to  do  engi- 
neering work  for  Korea. 

1897.  Work  begun  on  Chemulpo  Railway  with  Collbran  &  James 
as  contractors.     Management  of  H.  R.  Bostwick. 

1897.  Standard  Oil  Co.  built  warehouse  at  Chemulpo. 

1898.  Seoul  Electric  Co.  organized  and  work  of  building  electric 
railway,    lighting   plant,    and    Avaterworks,   begun   by    Collbran   & 
Bostwick. 

1S99.  Seoul  electric  street  railway  completed  and  manned  by 
American  motormen. 


32  KOREA'S  APPEAL. 

1899.  Tramway  concession  granted  to  Collbran  &  Bostwick. 

1900.  Bank  and  office  building  erected  by.  Americans. 

1902.  Commissioners  named  to  be  sent  to  Louisiana  Purchase 
Exposition  at  St.  Louis. 

TREATY  AND  DIPLOMATIC  RELATIONS  BETWEEN  GREAT  BK1TATN  AND  KOREA. 

Treaty  between  Korea  and  Great  Britain,  negotiated  on  behalf 
of  Great  Britain  by  Sir  Harry  Smith  Parkes,  and  dated  Novem- 
ber 26,  1883. 

Provisions  in  substance  the  same  as  treaty  with  the  United  States. 

Ministers  from  Great  Britain  to  Korea:  Sir  Harry  Parkes,  ap- 
pointed in  1884 ;  Sir  John  Walshan,  appointed  in  1885 ;  Et.  Hon.  Sir. 
Nicholas  K.  O'Conor,  in  1892 ;  Sir  Claude  MacDonald,  in  1896 ;  J.  N. 
Jordan,  C.  M.  G.,  in  1898. 

TREATY  AND  DIPLOMATIC   RELATIONS   BETWEEN   KOREA   AND   FRANCE. 
TKEATY  OF  FRIENDSHIP,    COMMERCE,   AND   NAVIGATION   DATED   JUNE   4,    1886. 

Provisions  in  substance  the  same  as  treaty  with  the  United  States. 
Ministers  from  France  to  Korea :  V.  Collin  cle  Plancy,  appointed 
in  1888;  H.  Fradin,  in  1892;  V.  Collin  de  Plancy,  in  1901. 

TREATY  AND  DIPLOMATIC  RELATIONS  BETWEEN   KOREA  AND  ITALY. 

TREATY  OF  FRIENDSHIP  AND  COMMERCE  DATED  JUNE  26,   IS 84. 

Provisions  in  substance  the  same  as  treaty  with  the  United  States. 
Ministers  from  Italy  to  Korea:  Duties  performed  by  consul  gen- 
erals at  Shanghai,  China. 

TREATY   AND   DIPLOMATIC    RELATIONS    BETWEEN    CHINA    AND    KOREA. 
CHINA'S  CLAIMS  OF  SUZERAINTY  OVER  KOREA. 

Such  claims  were  made  by  China  for  many  centuries.  Historians 
clo  not  all  agree  as  to  the  validity  of  these  claims.  In  any  event  the 
claims  were  not  asserted  in  any  practical  way  and  that  question  is 
now  internationally  res  adjudicata. 

The  following  is  quoted  from  instructions  given  by  Acting  Secre- 
tary Alvey  A.  Adee,  to  Minister  Sill,  dated  July  9,  1895 : 

The  position  assumed  by  this  Government  toward  Korea  since  contracting 
the  treaty  with  it  in  1882  has  in  no  wise  been  affected  by  recent  events.  Korea's 
treaty  Independence  since  then  has  been  for  us  an  established  and  accepted  fact. 

CHINA'S  ATTEMPT  TO  STOP  FIRST  KOREAN  ENVOYS  TO  UNITED  STATES — UNITED  STATES 

ESCORT  FURNISHED. 

See  report  Xo.  53  of  Mr.  Dinsmore  to  Mr.  Bayard,  dated  September 
30,  1887,  with  inclosures  1  to  4,  inclusive. 

Following  is  quoted  from  Korean  Chronological  Index  by  Horace 
N.Allen: 

September  27.  1S87.  Korean  mission  started  for  Washington  accompanied  by 
H.  N.  Allen.  The  Koreans  were  turned  back  by  Chinese  interference. 

November  13,  1887.  The  Korean  mission  to  Washington  sailed  from  Che- 
mulpo on  U.  S.  S.  Osaipee,  Capt.  McXair.  They  passed  six  Chinese  men-of-war 
Bent  to  stop  them. 


KOREA'S  APPEAL.  33 

COMMERCIAL  TREATY  BETWEEN    KOREA   AND    CHINA. 

Dated  September  11,  1899.  Provisions  identical  with  the  treaty 
made  with  the  United  States. 

Ministers  to  Korea  under  above  treaty :  Hsu  Sou  Peng,  appointed 
December  14,  1899 ;  Hsu  Tai  Shen,  appointed  November  12,  1901. 

TREATY    AND   DIPLOMATIC    RELATIONS    BETWEEN    KOREA   AND    RUSSIA. 

TREATY   OF   AMITY   AND   COMMERCE. 

Dated  June  25,  1884,  and  ratified  October  14,  1885.  Provisions  in 
substance  same  as  United  States  treaty  of  1882. 

Ministers  from  Russia:  C.  Waeber,  appointed  October  14,  1885; 
A.  N.  Speyer,  appointed  March  28,  1898 ;  A.  Pavlow,  appointed  De- 
cember 13,  1898. 

TREATY  AND  DIPLOMATIC  RELATIONS  BETWEEN  KOREA  AND  GERMANY. 

TREATY  BETWEEN  GERMANY  AND   KOREA  OF  AMITY  AND  COMMERCE,   DATED  NOVEMBEB 
23,    1883,   RATIFIED    APRIL    28,    1SS4. 

Provisions  are  substantially  the  same  as  the  treaty  with  the  United 
States  of  1882. 

German  ministers  to  Korea :  Capt.  Zembisch,  appointed  November 
18,  1884 ;  T.  Kempermann,  appointed  May  17,  1886 ;  H.  Weipert,  ap- 
pointed September  29, 1900. 

TREATY  AND  DIPLOMATIC  RELATIONS   BETWEEN  KOREA  AND  AUSTRIA. 

TREATY   OF  AMITY   AND   COMMERCE   SIGNED   JULY    23,    1S92,    AND  RATIFIED   OCTOBER    5, 

1893. 

Provisions  substantially  the  same  as  those  of  the  treaty  with  the 
United  States  in  1882. 

Diplomatic  matters  handled  through  Germany. 

TREATY  AND  DIPLOMATIC  RELATIONS  BETWEEN  KOREA  AND  DENMARK. 

TREATY  OF  FRIENDSHIP,  COMMERCE,  AND  NAVIGATION,  DATED   JULY   15,    1902. 

Diplomatic  relations  handled  through  Belgium. 

TREATY  AND  DIPLOMATIC  RELATIONS  BETWEEN  KOREA  AND  BELGIUM. 

TREATY  OF  AMITY  AND  COMMERCE,  DATED  MARCH   23,   1901. 

Ministers  from  Belgium  to  Korea:  Leon  Vincart,  consul  general, 
October  17,  1901,  with  Maurice  Cuvelier  as  vice  consul. 

TREATY  AND   DIPLOMATIC  RELATIONS   BETWTEEN    JAPAN  AND   KOREA   PRIOR 
TO  PRESENT  MILITARY  OCCUPATION. 

TREATY  BETWEEN   JAPAN   AND  KOREA,   DATED  FEBRUARY   26,    1876. 

ARTICLE  1.  "Chosen  (Korea)  being  an  independent  State  enjoys 
the  same  sovereign  rights  as  does  Japan." 


34  KOKEA'S  APPEAL. 

TREATY  BETWEEN  JAPAN  AND  KOREA,  DATED  24,   1876. 

Provides  10  trading  rules  under  the  previous  treaty  of  February 
26,  1876. 

TREATY  OF  ALLIANCE  BETWEEN   JAPAN  AND  KOREA,  DATED   JULY    14,    1894. 

ARTICLE  I.  That  the  independence  of  Korea  is  declared  confirmed 
and  established  and  in  keeping  with  it  the  Chinese  troops  are  to  be 
driven  out  of  the  country. 

ART.  II.  That  while  war  against  China  is  being  carried  on  by 
Japan,  Korea  is  to  facilitate  the  movement  and  to  help  in  the  food 
supplies  of  the  Japanese  troops  in  every  possible  way. 

ART.  III.  That  this  treaty  shall  only  last  until  the  conclusion  of 
peace  with  China. 

TREATY  OF  ALLIANCE  BETWEEN  JAPAN  AND  KOREA,  DATED  FEBRUARY   23,    1904. 

ARTICLE  I.  For  the  purpose  of  maintaining  a  permanent  and  solid 
friendship  between  Japan  and  Korea  and  firmly  establishing  peace 
in  the  Far  East  the  Imperial  Government  of  Korea  shall  place  full 
confidence  in  the  Imperial  Government  of  Japan  and  adopt  the 
advice  of  the  latter  in  regard  to  improvements  in  administration. 

ART.  II.  The  Imperial  Government  of  Japan  shall  in  a  spirit  of 
firm  friendship  insure  the  safety  and  repose  of  the  Imperial  Hou-e 
of  Korea. 

ART.  III.  The  Imperial  Government  of  Japan  definitely  guaran- 
tees the  independence  and  territorial  integrity  of  the  Korean  Empire. 

ART.  IV.  In  case  the  welfare  of  the  Imperial  House  of  Korea  or 
the  territorial  integrity  of  Korea  is  endangered  by  aggression  of  a 
third  power  or  by  internal  disturbance,  the  Imperial  Government  of 
Japan  shall  immediately  take  such  necessary  measures  as  the  cir- 
cumstances require,  and  in  such  cases  the  Imperial  Government  of 
Korea  shall  give  full  facilities  to  promote  the  action  of  the  Imperial 
Japanese  Government.  The  Imperial  Government  of  Japan  may, 
for  the  attainment  of  the  above  mentioned  objects,  occupy,  when  the 
circumstances  require  it,  such  places  as  may  be  necessary  from 
strategical  points  of  view. 

ART.  V.  The  Government  of  the  two  countries  shall  not  in  future, 
without  mutual  consent,  conclude  with  a  third  power  such  an 
arrangement  as  may  be  contrary  to  the  principles  of  the  present 
protocol. 

Ministers  from  Japan  to  Korea  in  period  prior  to  present  military 
occupation.:  Y.  Haiiabusa,  appointed  charge,  November  25,  1877; 
S.  Takesoye,  appointed  minister,  January  7,  1883;  K.  Takahira,  ap- 
pointed charge,  June  23,  1885;  T.  Kajiyama,  appointed  minister, 
April  17,  1891;  M.  Oishi,  appointed  minister,  January  25,  1883;  K. 
Otori,  appointed  minister,  September  28,  1893;  Count  Inouye,  ap- 
pointed minister,  October  26,  1894;  Viscount  Miura,  appointed 
minister,  September  1,  1895 ;  J.  Koinura,  appointed  minister, 
October  19,  1895;  K.  Hara,  appointed  minister,  July  7,  1896;  M. 
Kato,  appointed  minister,  February  24,  1897 ;  G.  Hayashi,  appointed 
minister,  June  25,  1899;  Y.  Yamaza,  appointed  charge,  February  6, 
1901;  G.  Hayashi,  appointed  charge,  February  13,  1903. 


KOREA'S  APPEAL.  35 

TREATY  AND  DIPLOMATIC  RELATIONS  BETWEEN  JAPAN  AND  KOREA  DURING 
MENACE  PRESENT  MILITARY  OCCUPATION. 

ALLEGED   TREATY,   DATED   AUGUST    22,    1904. 

Requiring  Korea  to  engage  financial  and  diplomatic  advisers 
designated  by  Japan,  and  requiring  Korea  to  consult  with  Japan 
before  making  treaties  with  foreign  powers,  and  before  granting 
concessions  or  making  contracts  with  foreigners. 

ALLEGED  TREATY,  DATED  APEIL  1,  1905. 

Transferring  post,  telegraph,  and  telephone  service  jto  Japan. 
Includes  right  of  eminent  domain  or  condemnation  against  public 
property  without  compensation  and  against  private  property  with 
indemnification.  No  compensation  or  payment,  except  that  Japan 
"  shall  deliver  to  the  Korean  Government  a  suitable  percentage  of 
the  profit." 

ALLEGED    TREATY,    DATED    AUGUST    IS,    1905. 

Granting  concession  to  Japanese  vessels  to  navigate  coast  and 
inland  waters. 

ALLEGED  TREATY,  DATED  NOVEMBER  17,  1905. 

This  is  the  treaty  under  which  Japan  claims  a  "  protectorate  "  over 
Korea  and  by  which  it  is  alleged  Japan  took  over  the  foreign  relations 
of  Korea.  (Korea  denies  execution  of  this  treaty,  and  facts  show 
duress.  See  subsequent  titles  alleged  treaties  since  February  23, 1904, 
void  for  duress  and  coercion.) 

ALLEGED    ABDICATION    OF    EMPEROR    YI    IN    1907. 

The  following  is  the  substance  of  a  typical  report  of  the  facts,  in 
Current  Literature,  volume  43,  page  252,  September,  1907 : 

Yi,  it  is  explained,  brought  this  upon  himself  by  sending  delegates  to  The 
Hague,  which  act  was  considered  high  treason.  Saiouji  cabled  to  Ito  in  unmis- 
takable language.  Ito  went  to  the  palace.  He  discovered  that  the  Emperor  had 
arranged  to  flee  to  the  protection  of  Russia.  The  palace  gates  were  doubly 
guarded,  and  in  another  24  hours  Korea  had  a  new  Emperor.  Yi  was  thus 
summarily  disposed  of  for  reasons  far  more  weighty  than  his  sending  envoys  to 
The  Hague. 

In  an  article  entitled  "  The  extinction  of  Korea,"  published  in  the 
Independent,  volume  63,  page  230,  1907,  the  writer  ridicules  the 
Japanese  version  that  the  Emperor  advised  with  Ito  about  whether 
he  should  abdicate ;  that  the  ministers  came  to  Ito  for  protection,  and 
that  Ito  promptly  and  generously  acceded  to  their  request  and  used 
the  armed  forces  of  Japan  to  that  end. 

As  to  the  fact  that  the  crown  prince  who  succeeded  Emperor  Yi 
was  mentally  incompetent,  we  have  already  stated  the  facts  in  the 
statement  of  the  case  at  page  17. 

ALLEGED  TREATY,  DATED  JULY  24,  1907. 

Provides  that  Korea  shall  act  under  guidance  of  Japanese  resident 
general  and  turning  over  administration  of  internal  affairs  to  Japan. 
Executed  by  Korean  traitor,  Yi  Won-yong,  as  minister  resident  of 


36  KOREA'S  APPEAL. 

state ;  afterwards  given  title  of  count  and  bribe  of  $500,000 ;  never 
authorized  or  executed  by  Emperor.  » 

ALLEGED  TREATY,   DATED  AUGUST    20,    1910. 

Annexation  treaty,  providing  for  permanent  cession  to  the  Em- 
peror of  Japan  of  all  rights  of  sovereignty  over  the  whole  of  Korea. 
Executed  by  Korean  traitor,  Yi  Won-yong,  purporting  to  act  as 
minister  president  of  state  of  Korea;  never  authorized  or  executed 
by  Emperor. 

OFFICIAL  DECLARATIONS  BY  JAPAN  THAT  HER  TREATIES  WITH  KOREA  SHALL  NOT 
INTERFERE  WITH  EXISTING  TREATIES  BETWEEN  KOREA  AND  OTHER  POWERS,  INCLUD- 
ING UNITED  STATES. 

Official  rescript  issued  by  Japan,  November  22,  1905,  declares : 

In  bringing  this  agreement  to  the  notice  of  the  powers  having  treaties  with 
Korea,  the  Imperial  Government  declares  that  *  *  *  they  will  see  that 
these  treaties  are  maintained  and  respected,  and  they  also  engage  not  to 
prejudice  in  any  way  the  legitimate  commercial  and  industrial  interests  of 
those  powers  in  Korea. 

Mr.  H.  Percival  Dodge,  American  charge  de'affaires  at  Tokyo, 
reported  to  the  State  Department  on  September  19,  1907,  that  Mar- 
quis Ito,  resident  general  for  the  Japanese  Government  in  Korea, 
in  a  public  address  at  a  banquet  tendered  him  by  the  House  of 
Peers,  "  was  emphatic  in  pronouncing  all  annexation  talk  as  absurd. 
The  new  agreement  furnished  a  streak  of  hope  and  led  by  it  he  was 
striving  for  the  permanency  of  the  Yi  dynasty  and  the  preserva- 
tion of  Korea." 

See  also  communication  to  State  Department  by  Minister  Takahira 
and  reply  by  Mr.  Aclee,  already  quoted  at  page  18  of  the  statement 
of  the  case. 

ALLEGED  TREATIES  SINCE  FEBRUARY,  1904,  VOID  FOR  DURESS  AND  COERCION. 

In  Hershey's  International  Law  and  Diplomacy,  at  page  75,  the 
author  refers  to  the  fact  that  the  treaty  of  February  23,  1904,  was 
valid  because  coercion  was  not  used,  and  then  writes: 

The  same  statement  can  not  be  made  in  respect  to  the  convention  of  No- 
vember 17,  1905.  In  the  case  of  the  latter  treaty,  it  is  charged  that  the  signa- 
tures of  the  Emperor  of  Korea  and  the  Korean  ministers  were  obtained  by 
Ito  and  Hayashi,  the  Japanese  plenipotentiaries,  as  the  result  of  force  and 
intimidation  due  to  the  presence  of  Japanese  soldiers.  (See  London  Times, 
Dec.  5,  1905.)  This  treaty  was  also  invalid  from  a  strictly  legal  point  of 
view  for  another  reason.  It  formally  extinguished  the  independence  of  Korea 
by  transferring  this  country  into  a  protectorate,  for  the  direction  of  Korean 
foreign  affairs  was  placed  under  the  control  and  direction  of  representatives 
of  the  Japanese  Government. 

The  same  author  discussing  the  circular  note  to  the  powers  by 
Count  Lamsdorff,  dated  February  22,  1904,  protesting  for  Russia 
against  the  occupation  of  Korea  by  Japan,  said  on  page  71  of  his 
work : 

There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  according  to  strict  letter  of  the  law  Japan 
was  guilty  of  a  violation  of  one  of  the  most  fundamental  rules  of  international 
law,  viz,  the  right  of  an  independent  State  to  remain  neutral  during  war 
between  other  members  of  the  family  of  nations,  and  to  have  its  neutrality  and 
territorial  sovereignty  respected  by  the  belligerent  States. 


KOREA'S  APPEAL.  37 

In  a  note  the  author  says  further : 

This  may  now  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  best  established  and  most  funda- 
mental rules  of  international  law. 

******* 

In  order  to  raise  her  position  in  Korea  above  that  of  a  mere  military  occupant, 
on  the  one  hand,  or  a  vulgar  conqueror  on  the  other,  Japan  negotiated  the  treaty 
with  Korea  in  which  she  guaranteed  the  independence  and  integrity  of  the 
Korean  Empire.  (The  treaty  of  Feb.  23,  1904.) 

The  following  may  be  said  to  be  a  composite  of  all  the  statements  of 
the  rules  relating  to  duress  in  international  affairs : 

It  (international  law)  regards  all  contracts  as  valid,  notwithstanding  the  use 
of  force  and  intimidation,  which  do  not  destroy  the  independence  of  the  State 
which  has  been  obliged  to  enter  into  them.  When  this  point  is  past,  however, 
constraint  vitiates  the  agreement,  because  it  can  not  be  supposed  that  a  State 
would  voluntarily  commit  suicide  by  way  of  reparation  or  measure  of  protec- 
tion to  another. 

******* 

The  only  kind  of  duress  which  justifies  a  breach  of  treaty  is  the  coercion  of 
the  sovereign  or  plenipotentiary  to  such  an  extent  as  to  induce  him  to  enter  into 
arrangements  which  he  never  would  have  made  but  for  the  fear  on  account  of 
his  personal  safety.  Such  was  the  renunciation  of  the  Spanish  Crown  extorted 
by  Napoleon  at  Bayonne  in  1807  from  Charles  the  Fourth  and  his  son  Ferdi- 
nand. The  people  of  Spain  broke  no  faith  when  they  refused  to  be  bound  by  it 
and  arose  in  insurrection  against  Joseph  Bonaparte  who  had  been  placed  upon 
the  throne.  (Hershey's  International  Law  and  Diplomacy,  page  75;  Lawrence 
Principles,  p.  287 ;  Hall  International  Law,  p.  326 ;  Bluntschili,  sec.  409 ;  Rivier 
II,  p.  55;  Bonsfils-Fauchille,  sec.  818;  Despagnet,  sec.  455.) 

MURDER   OF   THE   QUEEN. 

Though  this  incident  occurred  prior  to  February  23.  1904,  it  gave 
force  to  subsequent  threats.  The  following  telegrams  were  received 
at  the  State  Department  on  their  respective  dates,  sent  by  United 
States  diplomatic  representatives: 

TOKYO,  October  9,  1895. 

The  following  telegram  has  been  received  from  Allen,  dated  Seoul,  October  9 : 

"  Yesterday  morning  King's  father,  with  the  assistance  of  Japanese,  forcibly 

entered  royal  palace.     Two  officers  killed  in  attempting  to  save  Her  Majesty. 

Queen  and  three  ladies  murdered.    Murderers  were  Japanese  in  civilian  dress." 

DUN. 

TOKYO,  October  12,  1895. 

The  following  telegram  has  been  received  from  Allen,  dated  October  11 : 
"  I  have  received  to-day  a  detachment  of  marines  from  the  Yorktoicn.    Charge1 
d'affaires  Russia  the  same.     English  consul  sent  immediately  for  war  vessel. 
Missing  Queen  deposed." 

DUN. 

TOKYO,  October  l.'h  1895. 

The  following  telegram  has  been  received  from  Allen,  dated  October  13 : 
"  This  Government  is  now  under  control  of  King's  father  and  five  traitors, 
under  the  guidance  of  Japanese.  The  condition  of  His  Majesty  pitiful.  Queen 
murdered ;  murderers  in  full  power.  His  own  life  in  imminent  peril.  *  *  * 
Japanese  minister  states  that  atrocities  were  committed  by  natives  disguised 
to  represent  Japanese.  It  is  absurd.  Charge  d'affaires  of  Russia  and  myself 
saw  30  of  them  leaving  royal  palace  just  after  atrocities  armed  with  swords. 
They  were  Japanese.  Also  a  reliable  American  military  officer  of  the  Govern- 
ment saw  Japanese  troops  enter  royal  palace  in  advance  of  insurgents,  and 
they  witnessed  atrocities  but  made  no  attempt  to  prevent  them.  Sufficient  evi- 
dence implicating  Japanese  minister  overwhelming." 

DUN. 


38  KOREA'S  APPEAL. 

SEOUL,  October  26,  1S9~>. 

Japanese  minister  and  officers  of  his  legation  and  army  have  been  sent  to 
Japan.  Count  Inouye  is  coming  to  Seoul  as  special  ambassador.  The  K  ug 
is  under  strict  duress.  His  life  in  peril.  I  do  not  recognize  decrees  forced  from 
him.  Allen's  conduct  affairs  excellent. 

SILL. 

See  full  text  of  court  record  of  trial  of  Viscount  Miura — Ap- 
pendix I. — The  case  of  Korea  by  Henry  Chung,  pp.  322  to  328. 

MILITARY   OCCUPATION. 

Japan  at  the  present  time  has  established  three  military  sta- 
tions in  Korea — at  Penyang,  Seoul,  and  Taiku,  and  has  two  naval 
bases,  one  at  Masanpo  and  the  other  in  the  bay  near  Wonsan.  Tim ; 
land  forces  are  established  with  bases  in  the  north,  central,  and 
southern  portions  of  Korea,  and  the  south  and  east  coast  is  guard-" I 
by  naval  bases  at  the  southeast  and  the  northeast.  The  west  coast 
is  sufficiently  patrolled  from  Dairen  and  Port  Arthur. 

In  the  same  manner  the  whole  of  Korea  has  been  occupied  and 
dominated  by  Japanese  militaristic  forces  ever  since  they  were  per- 
mitted to  land  by  Korea  under  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  February 
23,  1904,  in  which  Japan  guaranteed  the  independence  and  territorial 
integrity  of  Korea. 

OCCURRENCES    DURING    NEGOTIATION    OF    ALLEGED    TREATY    CREATING    A    PROTECTORATE, 
DATED    NOVEMBER    17,    1.905. 

We  quote  the  following  from  pages  131  to  137  of  Mr.  Macken- 
zie's work,  "  The  Tragedy  of  Korea  r'  : 

Early  in  November  the  Marquis  Ito  arrived  in  Seoul  as  special  envoy  of  the 
Emperor  of  Japan,  and  he  brought  with  him  a  letter  from  the  Mikado  saying 
that  he  hoped  the  Korean  Emperor  would  follow  the  directions  of  the  Marquis 
and  come  to  an  agreement  with  him,  as  it  was  essential  for  the  maintenance 
of  peace  in  the  Far  East  that  he  should  do  so.  On  November  15,  Marquis 
Ito  was  received  in  formal  audience  and  there  presented  a  series  of  demands 
drawn  up  in  treaty  form.  These  were,  in  the  main,  that  the  foreign  relations  of 
Korea  should  now  be  placed  entirely  in  the  hands  of  Japan,  the  Korean  diplo- 
matic service  be  brought  to  an  end,  and  the  ministers  recalled  from  foreign 
courts.  The  Japanese  minister  to  Korea  was  to  become  supreme  administrator 
to  the  country  under  the  Emperor  and  the  Japanese  consuls  in  the  different 
districts  were  to  be  made  residents,  with  the  powers  of  supreme  local  gov- 
ernors. In  other  words,  Korea  was  entirely  to  surrender  her  independence 
.as  a  .State  and  was  to  hand  over  control  of  her  internal  administration  to  the 
Japanese.  The  Emperor  met  the  request  with  a  blank  refusal.  The  con- 
versation between  the  two,  as  reported  at  the  time,  was  as  follows : 

The  Emperor  said : 

"  Although  I  have  seen  in  the  newspapers  various  rumors  that  Japan  pro- 
posed to  assume  a  protectorate  over  Korea,  I  did  not  believe  them,  as  I  placed 
faith  in  Japan's  adherence  to  the  promise  to  maintain  the  independence  of 
Korea  which  was  made  by  the  Emperor  of  Japan  at  the  beginning  of  the  war 
and  embodied  in  .a  treaty  between  Korea  and  Japan.  When  I  heard  you  were 
coming  to  my  country  I  was  glad,  as  I  believed  your  mission  was  to  increase 
the  friendship  between  our  countries,  and  your  demands  have  therefore  taken 
me  entirely  by  surprise." 

To  which  Marquis  Ito  rejoined : 

"  These  demands  are  not  my  own ;  I  am  only  acting  in  accordance  with  a 
mandate  from  my  Government,  and  if  Your  Majesty  will  agree  to  the  demands 
which  I  have  presented,  it  will  be  to  the  benefit  of  both  nations,  and  peace  in 
the  East  will  be  assured  forever.  Please,  therefore,  consent  quickly." 

The  Emperor  replied : 

"  From  time  immemorial  it  has  been  the  custom  of  the  rulers  of  Korea,  when 
confronted  with  questions  so  momentous  as  this,  to  come  to  no  decision  until 


KOREA'S  APPEAL.  39 

all  the  ministers,  high  and  low,  who  hold  or  have  held  office,  have  been  con- 
sulted and  the  opinion  of  the  scholars  and  the  common  people  have  been  ob- 
tained, so  that  I  can  not  now  settle  this  matter  myself." 

Said  Marquis  Ito  again: 

"  Protests  from  the  people  can  be  easily  disposed  of,  and  for  the  sake  of 
friendship  between  the  two  countries  Your  Majesty  should  come  to  a  decision 
at  once." 

To  this  the  Emperor  replied : 

"  Assent  to  your  proposals  would  mean  the  ruin  of  my  country,  and  I  will 
therefore  sooner  die  than  agree  to  them." 

The  conference  lasted  nearly  five  hours,  and  the  Marquis  had  to  leave,  having 
accomplished  nothing.  He  at  once  tackled  the  members  of  the  cabinet,  in- 
dividually and  collectively.  They  were  all  summoned  to  the  Japanese  Lega- 
tion on  the  following  day,  and  a  furious  debate  began,  starting  at  3  o'clock 
in  the  afternoon  and  lasting  till  late  at  night.  The  ministers  had  sworn  to 
one  another  beforehand  that  they  would  not  yield.  In  spite  of  threats, 
cajoleries,  and  proffered  bribes,  they  remained  steadfast.  The  arguments 
used  by  Marquis  Ito  and  Mr.  Hayashi,  apart  from  personal  ones,  were  two- 
fold. The  first  was  that  it  was  essential  for  the  peace  of  the  Far  East  that 
Japan  and  Korea  should  be  united.  The  second  appealed  to  racial  ambition. 
The  Japanese  painted  to  the  Koreans  a  picture  of  a  great  united  East,  with 
the  Mongol  nations  all  standing  firm  and  as  one  against  the  white  man, 
who  would  reduce  them  to  submission  if  he  could.  The  Japanese  were  deter- 
mined to  give  the  cabinet  no  time  to  regather  its  strength.  On  the  17th  of 
November  another  conference  began  at  2  in  the  afternoon  at  the  legation, 
but  equally  without  result.  Mr.  Hayashi  then  advised  the  ministers  to  go 
to  the  palace  and  open  a  cabinet  meeting  in  the  presence  of  the  Emperor. 
This  was  done,  the  Japanese  joining  in. 

All  this  time  the  Japanese  army  had  been  making  a  great  display  of  mili- 
tary force  around  the  palace.  All  the  Japanese  troops  in  the  district  had 
been  for  days  parading  the  streets  and  open  places  fronting  the  imperial 
residence.  The  field  guns  were  out  and  the  men  were  fully  armed.  They 
marched,  countermarched,  stormed,  made  feint  attacks,  occupied  the  gates, 
put  their  guns  in  position,  and  did  everything  short  of  actual  violence  that 
they  could  to  demonstrate  to  the  Koreans  that  they  were  able  to  enforce  their 
demands.  To  the  cabinet  ministers  themselves  and  to  the  Emperor  all  this 
display  had  a  sinister  and  terrible  meaning.  They  could  not  forget  the  night 
in  1895  when  the  Japanese  soldiers  had  paraded  around  another  palace  and 
when  their  picked  bullies  had  forced  their  wny  inside  and  murdered  the  Queen. 
Japan  had  done  this  before;  why  should  she  not  do  it  again?  Not  one  of 
those  now  resisting  the  will  of  Dai  Nippon  but  saw  the  sword  in  front  of  his 
eyes  and  heard  in  imagination  a  hundred  times  during  the  day  the  rattle  of 
the  Japanese  bullets. 

That  evening  Japanese  soldiers,  with  fixed  bayonets,  entered  the  courtyard 
of  the  palace  and  stood  near  the  apartment  of  the  Emperor.  Marquis  Ito  now 
arrived,  accompanied  by  Gen.  Hasegawa,  commander  of  the  Japanese  army  in 
Korea,  and  a  fresh  attack  was  started  on  the  cabinet  ministers.  The  Marquis 
demanded  an  audience  of  the  Emperor.  The  Emperor  refused  to  grant  it, 
saying  that  his  throat  was  very  bad  and  he  was  in  great  pain.  The  Marquis 
then  made  his  way  into  the  Emperor's  presence  and  personally  requested  an 
audience.  The  Emperor  still  refused.  "  Please  go  away  and  discuss  the 
matter  with  the  cabinet  ministers,"  he  said. 

Thereupon  Marquis  Ito  went  outside  to  the  ministers.  "  Your  Emperor  has 
commanded  you  to  confer  with  me  and  settle  this  matter,"  he  declared.  A  fresh 
conference  was  opened.  The  presence  of  the  soldiers,  the  gleaming  of  the  bayo- 
nets outside,  the  harsh  words  of  command  that  could  be  heard  through  the 
windows  of  the  palace  buildings  were  not  without  their  effect.  The  ministers 
had  fought  for  days,  and  they  had  fought  alone.  No  single  foreign  representa- 
tive had  offered  them  help  or  counsel.  They  saw  submission  or  destruction 
before  them.  "What  is  the  use  of  our  resisting?"  said  one.  "The  Japanese 
always  get  their  way  in  the  end."  Signs  of  yielding  began  to  appear.  The 
acting  prime  minister,  Han  Kew  Sul,  jumped  to  his  feet  and  said  he  would  go 
and  tell  the  Emperor  of  the  talk  of  traitors.  Han  Kew  Sul  was  allowed  to 
leave  the  room  and  then  was  gripped  by  the  Japanese  secretary  of  the  legation, 
thrown  into  a  side  room,  and  threatened  with  death.  Even  Marquis  Ito  went 
out  to  him  to  persuade  him.  "  Would  you  not  yield."  the  Marquis  said,  "  if  your 
Emperor  commanded  you  ?"  "  Xo,"  said  Han  Kew  Sul,  "not  even  then !" 


40  KOREA'S  APPEAL. 

This  was  enough.  The  Marquis  at  once  went  to  the  Emperor.  "Han  Kew 
Sul  is  a  traitor,"  lie  said.  "  He  defies  you  and  declares  that  he  will  not  obey 
your  commands." 

Meanwhile  the  remaining  ministers  waited  in  the  cabinet  chamber.  Where 
was  their  leader,  the  man  who  had  urged  them  all  to  resist  to  death?  Minute 
after  minute  passed,  and  still  he  did  not  return.  Then  a  whisper  went  round 
that  the  Japanese  had  killed  him.  The  harsh  voices  of  the  Japanese  grew  still 
more  strident.  Courtesy  and  restraint  were  thrown  off.  "Agree  with  us  and 
be  rich  or  oppose  us  and  perish."  Pak  Che  Sun,  the  foreign  minister,  one  of  the 
best  and  most  capable  of  Korean  statesmen,  was  the  last  to  yield.  But  even  lu> 
Finally  gave  way.  In  the  early  hours  of  the  morning  commands  were  issued 
that  the  seal  of  state  should  be  brought  from  the  foreign  minister's  apartment 
and  a  treaty  should  be  signed.  Here  another  difficulty  arose.  The  custodian 
of  the  seal  had  received  orders  in  advance  that,  even  if  his  master  commanded, 
the  seal  was  not  to  be  surrendered  for  any  such  purpose.  When  telephonic 
orders  were  sent  to  him  he  refused  to  bring  the  seal  along,  and  special  messen- 
gers had  to  be  dispatched  to  take  it  from  him  by  force.  The  Emperor  himself 
asserts  to  this  day  that  he  did  not  consent. 

We  could  quote  extensively  from  other  works  and  contemporary 
reports  on  the  subject,  but  the  above  quotation  contains  the  facts  that 
can  not  be  controverted. 

REVIEW  OF  FACTS  ON  DUEESS. 

The  old  Emperor's  protest  to  the  United  States  gave  notice  of 
Japan's  oppression  and  selfish  motives  as  evidenced  by  her  acts,  and 
sought  assistance  and  the  good  offices  of  the  United  States  to  prevent 
the  consummation  of  the  Japanese  threatened  destruction  of  the  in- 
dependence of  Korea.  This  protest  was  prepared  and  dispatched  be- 
fore the  alleged  protectorate  had  been  asserted  by  Japan,  although  its 
delivery  was  prevented  by  wily,  crafty,  diplomatic  Japanese  intrigue 
until  after  Japan  had  asserted  its  alleged  protectorate. 

The  official  record  shows  you  that  this  protest  was  prepared  in 
October ;  that  the  protectorate  was  asserted  November  17,  1905 ;  that 
Japan  gave  out  notice  on  November  22,  1905,  to  the  powers  that  this 
protectorate  was  entirely  agreeable  to  the  Korean  Government  and 
the  Korean  people,  now  known  by  the  world  to  have  been  a  false  an- 
nouncement, but  then  taken  without  proof  to  be  true ;  that  on  Novem- 
ber 25, 1905,  the  Emperor's  protest,  prepared  and  dispatched  in  Octo- 
ber to  the  United  States,  was  delivered  to  the  State  Department ;  and 
that  on  November  26,  1905,  the  cable  from  the  old  Emperor  asserting 
that  the  protectorate  was  obtained  at  the  point  of  a  sword  and  was 
null  and  void  and  that  he  had  not  consented  to  it  and  never  would 
was  also  filed  with  the  State  Department  of  the  United  States. 

The  old  Emperor  found  that  a  further  appeal  was  necessary.  On 
June  22, 1906,  he  commissioned  a  special  envoy  to  the  United  States, 
Great  Britain,  France,  Germany,  Russia,  Austria-Hungary,  Italy, 
Belgium,  and  China,  with  full  authority  to  represent  the  interests  of 
the  Korean  Empire  at  the  seat  of  each  of  those  Governments,  and 
instructed  him  to  deliver  to  each  of  those  Governments  a  document 
relative  to  the  political  situation  in  Korea,  and  to  take  such  steps  as 
might  lead  to  the  peaceful  settlement  of  the  difficulties  which  had 
arisen  with  Japan.  He  was  also  given  special  authority  to  secure  an 
adjustment  of  the  matter  before  the  peace  conference  at  The  Hague. 

This  document  which  the  special  envoy  was  instructed  to  present 
to  the  powers  recited  the  fraudulent  character  of  the  asserted  pro- 
tectorate by  Japan,  declared  that  it  was  invalid,  and  that  under  no 


KOREA'S  APPEAL.  41 

circumstances  would  the  Government  of  Korea  voluntarily  consent 
to  the  ratification  of  any  instrument  which  would  impair  the  inde- 
pendence of  Korea,  and  that  if  any  power  claimed  that  the  pro- 
tectorate had  been  with  the  consent  of  Korea  that  such  claim  would 
be  wholly  false;  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Korea  was  a  de  jure 
independent  power  and  nation  the  powers  were  requested  to  reassert 
their  right  to  establish  diplomatic  relations  with  Korea,  and  were 
also  requested  to  aid  Korea  in  bringing  the  matter  before  The  Hague 
tribunal  in  order  that  Korea's  legal  and  just  claim  might  be  legally 
established. 

This  is  the  official  record,  and  it  might  Avell  be  said  that  it  is 
sufficient  in  and  of  itself,  without  reference  to  extraneous  proof 
to  establish  that  the  asserted  protectorate  of  November  17,  1905,. 
was  void.  The  old  Emperor,  the  acknowledged  and  recognized 
ruler  of  the  Korean  nation,  that  has  had  a  national  independent 
existence  for  over  4,000  years — to  be  exact,  ever  since  2333  B.  C. — 
officially  denounces  the  announcement  of  the  asserted  protectorate 
as  false.  His  denouncement  and  his  assertions  should  be  taken  as 
true. 

Japan  herself  up  to  this  time  had  been  loudest  in  asserting  to  the 
world  that  Korea  wTas  an  independent  nation. 

For  the  purposes  of  proper  explanation  of  the  questions  here  in- 
volved we  have  not  deemed  it  necessary  to  go  back  in  the  political  his- 
tory of  Korea  of  1876. 

By  solemn  treaties  and  conventions  Japan  reiterated  again  and 
again  the  sovereign  independence  of  Korea.  In  the  treaty  with 
Korea,  dated  February  26,  1876,  Japan  says:  "Chosen  (Korea) 
being  an  independent  State,  enjoys  the  same  sovereign  rights  as 
Japan."  In  her  treaty  with  China,  dated  April  18,  1885,  Japan 
agreed  to  withdraw  her  troops,  then  stationed  in  Korea,  and  forced 
China  to  agree  to  the  same  stipulation ;  and  forced  China  to  a  mutual 
agreement  to  invite  Korea  to  instruct  and  drill  a  sufficient  armed 
force,  to  the  end  that  she  might  herself  protect  her  national  security 
and  to  invite  Korea  to  engage  the  services  of  officers  of  a  third  power 
to  instruct  such  armed  force,  both  China  and  Japan  binding  them- 
selves not  to  send  any  of  their  officers  to  Korea  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  such  instruction. 

By  Japan's  treaty  with  Korea,  dated  July  14,  1894,  Japan  cov- 
enanted "  That  the  independence  of  Korea  was  declared,  confirmed, 
and  established,  and  in  keeping  with  it  the  Chinese  troops  were  to 
be  driven  out  of  the  country." 

By  her  treaty  with  China,  dated  April  1, 1895,  Japan  forced  China 
to  recognize  definitely  the  full  and  complete  independence  of  Korea. 

By  her  treaty  with  Russia,  dated  June  9, 1896,  Japan  forced  Russia 
to  consent  to  the  formation  and  maintenance  by  Korea  of  the  na- 
tional armed  force. 

In  the  treaty  with  Korea,  dated  February  23,  1904,  Japan  solemnly 
covenants  by  article  3  of  that  treaty  as  follows:  "The  Imperial 
Government  of  Japan  definitely  guarantee  the  independence  and 
territorial  integrity  of  the  Korean  Empire."  In  the  same  year  that 
a  protectorate  was  asserted  Japan  recognized  the  independent 
national  existence  of  Korea  by  making  two  treaties  with  Korea  by 
which  she  and  her  subjects  acquired  economic  rights  in  Korea.  On 


42  KOREA'S  APPEAL. 

April  1,  1905,  she  covenanted  with  Korea  for  the  purpose  of  acquir- 
ing the  post,  telegraph,  and  telephone  lines  in  Korea,  and  on  August 
13,  1905,  only  a  brief  period  of  three  months  before  asserting  the 
alleged  protectorate,  she  entered  into  a  treaty  with  Korea,  thereby 
recognizing  the  national  independent  existence  of  Korea  and  recog- 
nizing the  right  and  jurisdiction  of  Korea  to  control  navigation 
within  her  territorial  limits,  to  permit  Japanese  vessels  to  navigate 
along  the  coast  and  in  inland  waters  of  Korea  for  the  purpose  of 
trade. 

So  it  appears  that  within  a  few  months  of  the  asserted  protectorate 
that  Japan  recognized  the  national  independent  existence  of  Korea 
and  had  proclaimed  that  national  independent  existence  to  the  world 
by  her  solemn  treaties  and  covenants,  and  in  more  than  one  instance 
had  forced  other  powers  to  do  the  same. 

Under  such  circumstances,  why  should  not  the  protestation  and 
written  assertion  of  the  recognized  ruler  of  Korea,  that  the  asserted 
protectorate  was  invalid,  be  accepted? 

If  we  were  to  consider  what  must  have  been  the  attitude  and  temper 
of  the  Korean  Government  and  of  the  Korean  people  at  the  time  that 
Japan  asserted  the  protectorate  of  1905,  we  realize  how  absurd  and 
impossible  it  would  be  for  the  Korean  Government  and  the  Korean 
people  to  voluntarily  consent  to  this  protectorate. 

The  Koreans  could  not  but  remember,  and  we  can  not  but  re- 
member, that  in  1894  Japan  procured  permission  to  occupy  Korea 
with  troops  during  her  war  with  China,  under  the  expressed  promise 
to  withdraw  the  troops  at  the  conclusion  of  the  war,  and  how  at  the 
conclusion  of  the  war  with  China  Japan  violated  her  treaty  in  this 
respect  and  entered  upon  a  campaign  of  threats  to  secure  economic 
privileges  and  to  dominate  Korea. 

How  could  Koreans  forget,  or  we  forget,  that  awful  night  in 
October,  1895.  when,  by  Japanese  instigation,  the  queen,  who,  with 
all  the  power  and  influence  with  which  she  was  endowed,  was  seeking 
to  protect  her  beloved  people  from  Japanese  aggression,  was  ruth- 
lessly murdered  in  cold  blood  and  her  body  burned,  and  how  the 
grief -stricken  emperor  was  finally  obliged  to  flee  from  his  own  palace 
and  from  Japanese  domination  and  threats  and  to  take  refuge  in  the 
Russian  embassy,  a  fugitive  in  his  own  country  and  among  his  own 
people. 

How  can  Koreans  forget  or  we  forget  how  intensively  the 
Japanese  then  brought  into  play  all  their  abilities  of  diplomatic 
craft  and  intrigue,  and  finally  succeeded  in  getting  the  Emperor 
(then  holding  the  title  of  King)  to  return  to  his  palace,  upon  joint 
assurances  of  both  Russia  and  Japan,  and  how  for  the  time  being 
Japan  protested  a  love  and  friendship  for  Korea  that  Korea,  to  her 
sorrow,  and  the  world,  to  its  horror,  has  since  learned  to  be  insin- 
cere. 

Koreans  must  have  had  in  mind  and  must  bear  in  mind  how  Korea, 
in  February,  1904,  again  gave  permission  to  Japan  to  occupy  Korea 
with  troops  during  the  war  with  Russia,  and  how,  flushed  with  her 
success  in  the  Russian  war,  Japan,  throwing  off  the  guise  of  friend- 
ship, again  violated  her  treaty  and  refused  to  withdraw  her  troops, 
virtually  imprisoning  the  Emperor  and  boldly  set  about  to  confiscate 


KOREA'S  APPEAL,.  43 

the  economic  resources  of  the  country  and  to  dominate  its  govern- 
mental policies. 

It  was  fresh  in  the  Korean  mind  that  Japan  at  the  end  of  a  great 
Avar  had  defeated  Eussia  and  that  in  lieu  of  indemnity  she  had 
forced  Eussia  to  acknowledge  her  "  paramount  rights "  in  Korea. 

It  is  impossible  to  conceive  that  Korea  should  forget  all  of  these 
things  and  that  it  should  voluntarily  and  of  its  own  free  will  con- 
sent to,  much  less  welcome,  a  protectorate  from  a  country  by  whom 
she  had  been  so  misused. 

As  we  go  back  over  the  sltucvL'-.u  us  it  must  have  been  in  November, 
1905,  it  becomes  clearer  and  .clearer  that  the  crafty  Japanese  an- 
nouncement of  November  22',  idufe,"  that  Korea  had  consented  to  and 
welcomed  the  asserted  protectorate,  was  absurdly  and  ridiculously 
false,  and  we  became  more  and  more  convinced  of  the  truth  and 
sincerity  of  the  old  Emperor's  protestations  that  the  protectorate  had 
not  been  consented  -to  and  would  never  be  consented  to  by  the  Korean 
Government  and  Korean  people. 

It  seems  so  needless  to  present  outside  evidence ;  the  most  that  can 
be  said  is  that  it  is  cumulative.  We  hesitate  to  burden  the  reader 
with  a  volume  of  outside  proof  on  this  matter. 

There  is  available  the  statement  of  Prof.  Hulbert,  which  appears 
on  pages  4194  to  4196  of  the  Congressional  Eecord,  in  issue  of 
August  18,  1919,  to  which  you  can  refer. 

We  have  already  quoted  from  the  "  Tragedy  of  Korea,"  a  contem- 
poraneous history  of  current  events  by  Mr.  F.  A.  MacKenzie,  cover- 
ing the  crowning  of  the  new  Emperor  and  the  disbanding  of  the 
Korean  Army.  Mr.  MacKenzie  is  a  writer  of  note  and  a  man  of 
unimpeachable  integrity,  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  Korean 
question. 

Prof.  Hulbert,  to  whom  we  have  had  occasion  to  refer  so  many 
times  in  this  statement  and  brief,  is  also  the  author  of  a  work  on 
Korean  history,  entitled  "  The  Passing  of  Korea."  His  thorough 
and  intimate  knowledge  of  the  subject  can  not  be  questioned. 

There  are  many  other  authors  and  historians  of  note  who  have 
written  of  and  treated  the  Korean  question.  The  limited  space 
to  which  we  must  confine  ourselves  prevents  reference  to  or  quo- 
tations from  all. 

JAPANESE  ATROCITIES  IN  KOREA. 

See  Appendix  VII,  The  Case  of  Korea,  by  Henry  Chung,  pages 
846  to  358,  containing  tabulations  and  daily  occurrences  arranged 
chronologically  from  March  1,  1919.  See  also  chapters  from  the 
same  authority,  entitled  "  Political  and  Judicial  Oppression,"  page 
61 ;  "  The  Official  Paddle,"  a  chapter  on  the  horrors  of  flogging, 
page  Y4;  "Prisons  and  Prison  Tortures,"  page  86;  "  Japan  Amuck," 
page  214,  and  "  Massacres,"  page  231. 

See  also  Eeport  of  the  Federal  Council  of  Churches  of  Christ 
on  Korean  atrocities,  read  into  the  Congressional  Eecord,  July 
17,  1919,  Sixty-sixth  Congress,  first  session,  pages  2845  to  2865,  in- 
clusive. 


4:4  KOREA'S  APPEAL. 

INDEPENDENCE  MOVEMENT  AND  FORMATION  REPUBLIC  OF  KOREA. 

Over  9,000  news  items  and  special  articles  have  appeared  in 
the  public  press  of  the  United  States  since  this  movement 
was  started,  on  March  1,  1919,  covering  every  phase  and  detail. 
We,  therefore,  consider  it  only  necessary  to  refer  to  such  formal 
things  as  directly  concern  and  relate  to  facts  already  known. 

See  formal  notice  to  the  United  States,  dated  June  14,  1919,  filed 
with  the  President  and  Secretary  of  State,  of  the  formation  of  the 
republic,  giving  names  of  officialsj^geted,  etc. 

See  formal  appeal,  dated  Jung  -<'!'  1019,  filed  Avith  the  Secretary 
of  State  by  the  Republic  of  KorelfBBfc'^y  detailing  acts  of  oppres- 
sion and  asking  aid  of  "  good  offices^  of  the  United  States  under 
treaty  of  1882.  Attached  as  exhibits  are  copies  of  the  treaty  and 
the  formal  demand  upon  Japan  to  withdraw  military  forces. 

The  foregoing  are  in  addition  to  the  appeal  of  the  Emperor  of 
Korea,  filed  in  the  State  Department  on  November  25,  1905,  and 
his  cable  notice  of  the  illegality  of  the  claimed  protectorate,  filed 
in  the  State  Department  on  November  26, 1905. 

o 


*\/l    r*AV   TTCT7 

RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 

University  of  California 

Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made 
4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

APRT21003 
OCT  1 6  2003 


DD20  15M  4-02 


Manufactured  by 

6AYLORD  BROS.  Inc. 

Syracuse,  N. Y. 

Stockton,  Calif. 


M523632 


